








JAN 131925 


dy 4 

Secosreat sew 
Division.  HVE6RU'r 
Section © ae 347 [ | 


PE 
te ae 4a ri ines 


of 


Ba eb Ne 


eatin Pos 
a ad 
i ‘ 
¥ hgh aah y 


if 
Ahiy y') Ae 
1d SO It 
7 Tes } 


hey ed) 
van) 
yor 
Ply 
if 


; ’ y a “iY 
gop EE aN 
i Lies te: 4 j 


> 
‘ 


Ses ait 
ar i Ae 
ony 4 





= 
ek a 
ee Sa ea 


ae: 


*, 


— 
Yue 
> ae 

on 
= 
fe 


ivy 
4 


{we 


aR 
nye 
Ad 
4 i ral 


Ys 





ty 
a> 
they 
5m 
+* 


Man’s Judgment of 
Death 


An Analysis of the Operation and Effect 
of Capital Punishment Based on 
Facts, not on Sentiment 


By 


Lewis E. Lawes 


Warden, Sing Sing Prison 
President, American Prison Association, 1923 


“I shall ask for the abolition of the Penalty of Death until I 
have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.” 


LAFAYETTE. 


G.P. Putnam’s Sons 
New York & London 
The Rnickerbocker Drass 
1924 


Copyright, 1924 
by 
Lewis E. Lawes 





Made in the United States of America 


DEDICATED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE 
COMMITTEE OF THE PRISON ASSOCIATION OF 
NEw YORK, WHOSE INTEREST MADE 
POSSIBLE THE PUBLICATION OF 
THIS MANUSCRIPT 





FOREWORD 


No vital problem in the world today has 
been considered with so little accurate and 
scientific knowledge as capital punishment. 
We have always had this method of punish- 
ment and we have always had widespread 
capital crime. Because of inertia, conserva- 
tism, timidity, people have clung to this pun- 
ishment in the belief that it provided the only 
effective deterrent. They have blindly ac- 
cepted as facts, theories which this inertia, 
conservatism and timidity have forced upon 
public consciousness through generations. 
This has been so because there has been 
little actual knowledge and very little at- 
tempt to secure more knowledge. For this 
reason, I offer no apology for a presentation 


- of facts and statistics without romance and 


without emotional appeal. From twenty 
years of work in closest contact with this 
problem I could give many colorful experi- 
ences, but they would not aid in solving the 


Vv 


Vi FOREWORD 


problem, as it must be solved, if our progress 
in treatment of crime is to keep parallel with 
our advance in other sciences. 


Lewis E. LAWEs. 


OssINING, NEw YORK. 
February 25, 1924. 


Man’s Judgment of Death 





Man’s Judgment of Death 


Futility of Capital Punishment 


ry the Canadian Arctic, six hundred miles 

from Dawson City, two Eskimos are hung 
on the gallows by the Canadian Mounted 
Police, pursuant to a sentence of death duly 
and legally pronounced according to the law 
of the Dominion Government. The men who 
were executed had been in turn themselves 
the executioners according to due tribal form 
and ceremony (to them as legal and binding 
as any white man’s law) of an Eskimo mur- 
derer. But because their assumption of the 
function of executioners was sanctioned by 
tribal law, not by the Dominion law, they 
paid the identical penalty which a few months 

before they had meted out. 


“Vengeance again becomes decorous and legal and 
there seems to be no higher power ready to swing the 
British executors of the Eskimo executors off into the 
Arctic darkness of eternity.’’* 


The Nation: Editorial comment. 
3 


4 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


Thus do we again see the illogical futility 
of a method of punishment which is older 
than civilization itself. 


Growth of Sentiment against Death Penalty 


Capital punishment has always been dis- 
cussed and debated; pamphlets, articles and 
books have been written, speeches have been 
delivered on the subject; men prominent in 
every walk of life have expressed their opin- 
ions, until it seems as if no new thought could 
be brought to bear on the problem, as if no 
new contribution could be made that possesses 
the merit of throwing clearer light upon the 
topic. Far back in the early days of coloniza- 
tion in this country this problem was dis- 
cussed. And through this discussion and the 
attendant agitation has come a gradual lessen- 
ing in the number of capital offenses, a gradual 
broadening of the territory where the death 
penalty is entirely done away with or is 
retained to a limited extent only. 

In England in 1780, there were two hundred 
and forty capital offenses; in the time of 
Blackstone there were one hundred and sixty. 
Blackstone himself says: 


‘So dreadful a list instead of diminishing, increases 
the number of offenders. The injured through com- 


SENTIMENT ON DEATH PENALTY 5 


passion will often forbear to prosecute; juries through 
compassion will sometimes forget their oaths, and 
either acquit the guilty or mitigate the nature of the 
offense; and judges through compassion will respite 
one half of the convicts and recommend them to the 
Royal mercy. Among so many chances of escaping, 
the needy and hardened offender overlooks the multi- 
tude that suffer; he boldly engages in some desperate 
attempt to relieve his wants or supply his vices; and 
if, unexpectedly, the hand of justice overtakes him, 
he deems himself peculiarly unfortunate in falling at 
last a sacrifice to those laws which long impunity 
had taught him to contemn.’’* 


Changes of this character must come slowly. 
The fact that innocent persons may occasion- 
ally be executed does not affect the public 
mind to a sufficient extent to result in a 
popular demand for the abolition of the death 
penalty. Such occurrences are too remote 
from the lives of the vast majority. 

But from those early times until today, 
slowly but surely, the public sentiment against 
capital punishment has grown. Occasionally, 
and for a short period, this sentiment may 
- swing in the opposite direction, but the vol- 
ume, the strength of the movement increases, 
and today we stand on the edge of a strong 
sweep of popular feeling which eventually 


t Blackstone’s Commentaries. 


6 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


will carry on to the complete and final aboli- 
tion of capital punishment. This will come 
partly from moral and ethical reasons, but 
fundamentally because practical and scien- 
tific research will reveal its utter uselessness; 
and the process of all evolution, individual as 
well as national, is to discard that which is 
useless. 

In spite of the centuries that have elapsed, 
and the volumes that have been written on 
the subject, there has been too little careful 
scrutiny of facts. Many writers have assumed 
that it is impossible to secure statistics. 
The debates and arguments have been 
based on sentiment, on the appeal to the 
emotions, on religious and ethical founda- 
tions, whereas the problem is one that 
should have careful and scientific attention. 
The appeal to the emotions, to ethical con- 
siderations is right and proper, but it 
should be secondary to a rigid examination of 
facts, to scientific analysis of conditions and 
results. For this reason the discussion which 
I shall attempt to present may possess the 
merit of a new, and I hope somewhat unique 
contribution to the mass of material 
which has been written and spoken on the 
subject. 


SCOPE OF DISCUSSION 7 


Scope of Discussion 

The scope of this discussion, broadly speaking, 
is threefold. Topresentacomprehensivestate- 
ment of the present condition of capital punish- 
ment in its legal aspect, showing where it is 
retained, where it has been abolished, where 
there exists a choice between its application and 
life imprisonment as a punishment for murder; 
showing what the changes have been within 
the past decade ortwo. Toascertain from ex- 
isting facts and conditions just how this method 
of punishment works in actual operation. By 
this is meant a careful scrutiny of the statistics 
of death sentences, of sentences to life imprison- 
ment, and of executions over a period of years 
sufficiently long and covering a territory suffi- 
ciently broad, geographically, to be compre- 
hensive. Totry to discover from such statistics 
as can be collected what effect the imposition 
of the death penalty appears to have as a 
deterrent of capital crime. In order to under- 
stand and discuss this problem and to 
arrive at a right conclusion regarding it, we 
must know, first, exactly how the law exists 
today, second, what the actual facts are as 
to imposition and execution of death and 
life sentences, third, what relation can be 
observed between the existence or non-exist- 


8 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


ence of the death penalty and the number of 
homicides. 

It is my own very strong conviction that if 
it appears that the death penalty has no value 
as a deterrent of capital crime, the time has 
arrived when we should discard this archaic 
method of punishment and adopt in its place 
a substitute more modern and more scientific. 
This on the ground of expediency and regard- 
less of the moral or ethical aspects of the 
problem. Colonel Roosevelt, in his: auto- 
biography, says: 


“T am willing to listen to arguments in favor of 
abolishing the death penalty so far as they are based 
purely on grounds of public expediency although 
these arguments have never convinced me.”’ 


I have devoted my efforts entirely to this vital 
phase of the question—the practical side. 
Statistics at best are dry and uninteresting; 
but this is one problem that cannot be com- 
prehensively studied and analyzed without 
resorting to their use. In any careful con- 
sideration of the effect of capital punishment 
as a deterrent of capital crime, not only does 
there appear this necessity of statistical 
research, but I am convinced that some of the 
results will be so unexpected and so amazing 


THEORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 9 


even to those with a vital interest in the sub- 
ject, that a certain amount of glamour will be 
discovered in the dry statistical table. 


Theory of Capital Punishment 

The fundamental theory of punishment is 
that it is used for deterrence, for retribution 
and for reformation, and in the case of capital 
punishment there is a further basis urged for 
its retention—the need of eliminating those 
who menace the life and security of society. 
Reformation, obviously, cannot be attributed 
to the use of the death penalty. The argu- 
ment that capital punishment is necessary as 
a process of elimination is faulty; it is unscien- 
tific in application. The idea of punishment 
of any type solely as retribution is gradually 
disappearing, together with other of the older 
conceptions and theories of criminology. This 
idea is yielding to the more modern, progres- 
sive and scientific attitude, that retribution, 
a more euphonious word for revenge, is not 
justification for any system of punishment nor 
are its results beneficial. It is repressive, not 
reformative; it ignores social responsibility 
and disregards all possibility of individualiza- 
tion. 

A very serious defect in our application of 


10 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


capital punishment is the inequality with 
which it is applied to the rich and to the poor. 
The defendant of wealth and position, of 
influence, seldom goes to the electric chair. 
Through good counsel, through legal techni- 
calities and delay, through influence, he man- 
ages to escape death while the man who is 
friendless and destitute pays the extreme 
penalty. This statement is borne out by an 
examination of the data concerning the men 
who have been executed in this state during 
the past thirty years. It isa punishment, too, 
that falls most severely on the family of the 
offender. The mental and physical suffering 
of the murderer himself is soon over. Many 
are of the stoic type, or of such low intellec- 
tual development that they are susceptible of 
little feeling. The mothers, the wives, the 
sisters are the ones who suffer and for them 
this suffering continues for months before and 
for months after the execution. I yield to no 
one in acknowledging the duty we owe the 
family of the murderer’s victim. But I have 
very grave doubt whether we have the right 
to inflict this terrible burden on the innocent 
family of the murderer, believing as I do that 
the punishment itself serves no useful purpose 
either in its primary object of deterring others 


THEORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 11 


or its secondary object of reformation or 
expiation. 

Throughout the whole field of criminology 
we are coming more and more to advocate 
the theory of adapting the punishment to 
fit the criminal rather than to fit the crime. 
Capital punishment does not permit this. 
Where it is applied at all, it is applied arbi- 
trarily. We are apt to forget this truth: 

“It is not the murderer but the murder, that is the 
enemy. The primitive method of striking blindly in 
impotent rage at the life of the offender has had its 


day, but it still obscures our vision as to the real 
nature of our problem.’’* 


Satanentl 


The remaining argument, the_ deterrent 
theory of capital punishment, is the one in my 
opinion which demands the most serious 
consideration and it is the one to which I 
propose to devote this paper. This theory 
rests on the ground of its social necessity— 
that it is the only effective deterrent of capital 
crime. It is based on the supposition that 
life is man’s most valued possession. But 
how many there are who do not fear death, 
or to whom its remote threat is less impressive, 
less admonitory than the temptation of some 
desperate exigency! 

t George W. Kirchwey, The Death Penalty. 


a 


12 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


‘“‘Whether a man will commit crime depends upon 
his power of resisting evil as compared with the 
strength of the temptation he is called upon to resist.”’* 


Consider how closely prisoners must be 
watched lest they cheat the law and take their 
own lives. How inconsistent we are! We 
impose the death penalty upon the condemned 
murderer as the severest and most deterrent 
penalty we can devise, and then for months 
until the moment of execution we are com- 
pelled to watch that man day and night to be 
sure that he does not inflict upon himself the 
same penalty that the state prescribes. Recall 
to your mind reports appearing in the news- 
papers, not only of murders which appear 
almost daily, but of numerous promiscuous 
shootings. They are committed under most 
trifling provocations, by bootleggers, trying 
to get away with their wares, by traffickers 
in drugs, by burglars. In one notorious case 
two police officers were killed for no better 
reason than because the offender feared to be 
beaten up in the police station. 


‘In the latter part of the year 1915, Police Lieuten- 
ant Becker and four gunmen, alleged to have been 

t Aschaffenburg, German Psychologist and Criminologist, 
quoted in article on ‘‘Parole,’’ Journal of Criminal Law, August, 
1923. 


THEORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 13 


hired by him, were electrocuted at Sing Sing. Yet, 
when I was Warden at Sing Sing in the early months 
of 1916, there were in the death house five men await- 
ing execution for murders committed under precisely 
similar circumstances only a few weeks subsequently 
to the execution of the gunmen.’’* 


English history tells us that crime is not 
prevented because of the death penalty. 
Pickpockets to whom detection meant death 
plied their trade through the crowds at public 
hangings. Do these instances which I have 
cited show any effect of the fear of death as a 
deterrent? As I write these words, there 
comes to my mind the terrible tragedy of the 
little kidnapped boy whose mutilated body 
was discovered in New York’s East Side and I 
cannot but wonder how much of a deterrent 
the fear of the death chair was to the degen- 
erate mind which carried out this crime. 

More than a curious coincidence is the fact 
that several counties in this state had no mur- 
der convictions for a number of years, some of 
them for long periods. Yet when the first con- 
-viction for murder occurred, with the subse- 
quent execution of the murderer at Sing Sing, 
it was immediately followed by a number of 
murders. As a matter of fact our theory of 


George W. Kirchwey, The Death Penalty. 


14 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


capital punishment is both illogical and incon- 
sistent. In this theory it is the severity upon 
which emphasis is laid. Westress the fact that 
no other punishment is severe enough to deter. 
But many punishments have been devised in 
the past that were more severe. To be strictly 
logical, therefore, those who advocate a 
punishment because of its severity should 
abolish capital punishment because it is 
grossly inadequate. 


“Tf the efficacy of punishment be found in its 
severity such severity must be increased until it results 
in minimizing crime. We exhibit no faith in our 
advocacy of severity if we stop short of its limits.’’* 


Admission of Weakness as Deterrent 


Capital punishment is intended to protect 
society from murder by its deterring influence. 
Why weaken this by making it the most 
humane affair possible under the circum- 
stances—by selecting the quickest and most 
painless method? Why use the electric chair, 
or permit the prisoner, if he chooses, to face a 
firing squad as is done in at least one state? 
If the deterrent principle of capital punish- 
ment is the prime consideration, why not give 


t Julian P. Alexander, ‘‘ Philosophy of Punishment.’’ Journal 
of Criminal Law, August, 1922. 


ADMISSION OF WEAKNESS 15 


to the execution of the condemned the char- 
acter of a public function, urging the populace 
to witness the death scene that the spectacle 
may, perhaps, save them from a crime which 
otherwise they might be led to commit? The 
fact that we do not do this, that we make the 
executions as private and as humane as pos- 
sible, is an admission that if any influence at 
all is exerted it must be debasing or positively 
harmful. If on the other hand it has no 
influence, then its justification as an example 
is untenable. I cannot help but think of the 
story which comes from French Guiana, of 
Hespel, who was assigned as executioner of 
the Colony. When convicts were to be put to 
death, his was the duty of guillotining them. 
It would seem that he of all men should have 
felt the deterrent effect, if any existed. Yet 
he, himself, committed murder and was tried 
and convicted. 

It may be interesting to know that one 
hundred and thirty-five years ago in Phila- 
delphia, a young physician was advocating 
some of these theories of penology which we 
are inclined to regard as of modern origin. 
Dr. Benjamin Rush opposed publicity of 
punishment. His tenet was that all public 
punishment operated to make bad men worse 


16 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


and to increase crime by the noxious influence 
of such punishment upon society. Today we 
endorse this theory only half-heartedly. We 
make executions as secret as possible, yet we 
expect them to have a deterrent effect. 

I shall pass without further discussion the 
question whether deterrence is a proper object 
of punishment and the question of the logic 
of capital punishment itself, for I am con- 
vinced that the death penalty can be defend- 
ed and justified as a deterrent measure only 
if it is proven to be necessary and if it is found 
to be effective. This, I believe, is the crux of 
the problem. In order to meet this question 
with intelligence, statistics must be studied 
with the object of ascertaining whether capital 
punishment really is a deterrent—whether or 
not we have been deceiving ourselves with an 
illusion founded not on facts but on a theory, 
whether a careful and dispassionate analysis 
of the evidence will not reveal that we have 
been blindly following a chimera. This may 
be because everyone is instinctively horrified 
by the crime of murder, and because this 
instinctive feeling, regarding justice as de- 
manding an eye for an eye—the old concep- 
tion of retaliation—has developed the belief 
that nothing short of legalized murder by the 


COLLECTING STATISTICS 17 


state will prevent zllegal murder by the in- 
dividual. This feeling is well illustrated by a 
statement in a letter which I have received 
from a prominent westerner, needless to say 
an advocate of capital punishment; the italics 
are mine. 


“I am quite firm in my belief that when a person 
deliberately commits a murder in the first degree, 
he should forfeit his life—a just and righteous punish- 
ment for an inexcusable crime.”’ 


Then too, we have to contend with the 
natural conservatism of the legal profession. 
Lawyers have a great deal to do with our law 
making, and of course the functioning of legal 
processes is entirely in their hands. By train- 
ing they are led to follow precedent. New 
methods, new departures, experiments in 
governmental forms and processes are natural- 
ly abhorrent to their mental conceptions. As 
a class they are loath to try anything new, 
anything that has not the sanction of long 
usage. 


Difficulties of Collecting Statistics 


Before entering upon a discussion of the 
statistical data, it seems to me most import- 
ant that we should consider for a moment the 


18 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


difficulties in the path of one who seeks crim- 
inological statistics in this country. For 
without comprehensive data as to what has 
happened and is happening, how can we 
come to a true realization of how great a 
deterrent the death penalty has been in the 
past and is today? Many writers have 
assumed that we have no trustworthy sta- 
tistics. This is not the fact although the task 
of collecting and tabulating what we have is 
wearisome and difficult. It was not a source 
of pride in the thoroughness of our American 
methods to discover that it was possible to 
secure with greater celerity and accuracy 
complete homicide rate statistics from the 
twenty-five cantons of Switzerland than from 
our own states or even from a selected two- 
thirds. The Swiss data covered a period of 
forty years and the noteworthy fact is that they 
were ready compiled, whereas in this country 
such work is, to say the least, spasmodic. 

It is most deplorable that this condition 
exists. But that it does exist everyone who 
has made the effort will agree. It is most 
unfortunate that there are no uniform judicial 
statistics for the country as a whole, statistics 
which present comprehensive and accurate 
information, state by state, regarding the 


BUREAU OF STATISTICS 19 


number of homicides, of indictments, of judi- 
cial proceedings, convictions, acquittals and 
sentences. Last June I addressed to the 
Attorney-General of each state a brief ques- 
tionnaire covering these points of information. 
From fourteen states no reply at all was 
received, and although I followed this with a 
subsequent inquiry only three finally respond- 
ed. Half a dozen states replied that it was 
impossible to give any information. Twelve 
either referred the inquiry to other depart- 
ments or suggested other sources. Unfor- 
tunately however, no information was forth- 
coming from any of the suggested sources. 
The remaining states furnished some of the 
facts requested in varying degrees of com- 
prehensiveness, but except in a few cases they 
were so incomplete that no useful tabulation 
could be made. In attempts to secure this 
data hundreds of letters have been written, 
yet the results have been very incomplete; at 
best a little information from a few states that 
may be counted on one’s fingers. 


Centralized Bureau of Statistics 

Until information of this nature is collected 
and tabulated, so that the results may be 
studied and analyzed, how can we expect any 


20 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


real progress in our penological methods? We 
need to secure uniform and complete statis- 
tics covering the number of murders com- 
mitted in each state; how many were judicially 
acted upon and resulted in indictments; how 
many were brought to trial and with what 
results. After sentence is imposed, I am glad 
to say that the records of the state prisons 
in many of the states can supply information 
as to the subsequent disposal of the prisoner, 
although even data of this character are far 
from being complete. In some of the states 
executions are held in counties and no state- 
wide records have ever been kept. We need 
at once and urgently a complete and compre- 
hensive survey of the whole field to secure 
the data which I have outlined. In addition 
there should be installed a centralized federal 
bureau by which these data in the future may 
be collected from the various states, classified, 
tabulated and issued for the use and education 
of the public. Mr. William Draper Lewis, 
secretary of the American Law Institute, 
emphasizes this need and indicates the remedy: 


‘What is really needed is a scientific survey of the 
operation of the administrative agencies charged with 
the enforcement of law, the detection of wrong-doers, 
their prosecution and the results of the punishment 


BUREAU OF STATISTICS 21 


inflicted. Scientific investigation of what we may 
call these social conditions involves time, the expen- 
diture of a great deal of money and the employment 
of trained persons, and yet is there any other method 
by which results of value may be had?”’ * 


However, efforts have not been entirely un- 
productive; in spite of difficulties and limita- 
tions much accurate statistical information has 
been obtained, and while I do not affirm that 
any particular group of figures considered by 
itself offers conclusive proof that capital pun- 
ishment is a failure as a deterrent, yet I do 
maintain that the combined weight of evi- 
dence presented by the data secured from 
many independent sources, each corroborating 
the other, inclines the scale so strongly that the 
reflective man is bound to conclude that the 
death penalty has no apparent effect as a de- 
terrent. This bears out the assertion so often 
made and which I believe to be true, that the 
murderer, committing his crime in the heat 
of passion, gives no thought to the future 
penalty. 


*‘Most crimes are committed by persons who (1) 
either expect to evade detection and escape all punish- 
ment, or (2) who, upon the spur of the moment, are 


t Letter printed in Report of Committee on Law Enforcement, 
American Bar Association, 1923. 


—_ 


22 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


regardless of all punishment, or (3) who are governed 
by one or more cosmic, social and individual factors 
which the utmost rigor cannot remove, and which 
render the prospect or possibility of punishment 
wholly inoperative at the time of the commission 
of the crime.”’ * 


During the past thirty-four years nearly sixty 
percent of all the murderers received in Sing 
Sing under sentence of death were under the 
age of mature thinking which scientists place 
at thirty. They were young men who had not 
stopped to think of the penalty. 


Capital Punishment as it Exists Today 


Let us consider the actual situation with 
respect to the imposition of this penalty in the 
United States today. When we say that 
capital punishment is the law in forty of our 
states, which literally is true, we think of it 
as in general practice and use in those states. 
Most of us do not realize how infrequently 
this punishment is actually employed. In 
thirty-two of these forty states which nomi- 
nally retain capital punishment on the stat- 
ute books, the court or the jury has the 
right to choose between the death penalty 
and life imprisonment in all cases of convic- 


* Thomas Speed Mosby, Causes and Cure of Crime. 


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS IT EXISTS 23 


tion of murder in the first degree. Table I 
presents the states grouped according to their 
use of the death penalty together with the 
changes which have occurred since Mr. Bye 
in his essay showed the comparative situation 
in 1918.* It will be observed that four states, 
one in the middle west, Missouri, and three in 
the far west, Washington, Oregon and Arizona, 
have deserted the abolition column. ‘Their 
re-adoption of the death penalty occurred 
soon after the close of the war, and was un- 
doubtedly due partly to its influence, partly 
to local and temporary conditions which had 
their effect on public sentiment. As a matter 
of fact the period of abolition in each case was 
too short to have presented a fair test; as 
will be discussed at a later point it appears 
from such data as I have been able to gather 
that the restoration of the death penalty had 
no greater effect as a deterrent, and further that 
no noticeable increase in homicidal crime 
occurred during the abolition period (See Table 
XIII and Chart III). The group of states 
~where the choice is exercised has grown since 
1918, eight states having been added, so that 
we have left today only eight states where the 
imposition of death is made absolute upon 


Raymond T. Bye, Capital Punishment in the United States. 


24 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


conviction of murder in the first degree. 
Geographically, the practice of permitting the 
court or jury to choose between death and life 
imprisonment is very wide spread, except for 
that small solid group of reactionary, conser- 
vative states of which we are the center, 
Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
York and Pennsylvania. These states and a 
few others still cling to the old traditions in 
this as in so many other lines of progress. 


Choice between Capital Punishment and Life Im- 
prisonment 

That so many states (80% of those which 
retain capital punishment) allow the court or 
jury to select either life imprisonment or the 
death penalty, is proof of the fact that the 
sentiment of the vast majority of our people 
recognizes the existence of a distinction in 
degree even in premeditated murder; that 
there are murderers (a great majority if judged 
by the percentage of those who receive life sen- 
tences as compared with those who are con- 
demned to death) who, even in the opinion of 
its advocates, do not deserve the death penalty. 
But what man or group of men is qualified to 
determine the precise point at which this fine 
line should be drawn; to arrogate to them- 


CHOICE OF PUNISHMENT 25 


selves sufficient wisdom to say that this man 
deserves death for his act, whereas the crime 
of the next man is not quite so shocking or 
atrocious, he does not quite deserve to forfeit 
his life? By what measurement, by what rule 
is this point of demarcation to be found? 

Let us examine such statistics as are avail- 
able to see how this choice actually works out. 
In fifteen states where the choice is permitted 
and for which statistics are available, during 
the eight years from 1912 to I9I9 inclusive, 
there were 1724 persons sentenced either to 
death or to life imprisonment. Of these, 272 
received the death penalty, while 1452 were 
sentenced to life imprisonment. In the five 
states above mentioned (p. 24), where the 
death penalty is absolutely retained, during 
the same period there were 263 sentences to 
death and 454 sentences to life imprisonment. * 
Of course, not in all of these cases in the first 
group was there a direct choice; in both groups 
many of the sentences to life imprisonment 
represent convictions for murder in the second 
degree. But the difference in the ratios is 
sufficiently impressive to indicate how rarely 
the death penalty is imposed when there is 
any opportunity for a choice. In New Jersey 


t Figures compiled from Tables II and IV. 


26 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


during the past three years, out of a total of 
fifty-four first degree murder cases, thirty- 
nine were sentenced to life imprisonment and 
only fifteen received the death penalty. 
Throughout the country as a whole the follow- 
ing data for the year 1910 are illuminating. 
Although the death penalty was at that time 
retained in forty-three states, yet of the nine 
hundred and fifty odd prisoners who in that 
year were committed for grave homicide 
throughout the United States, only 12.2 per- 
cent received the death penalty.: 

We also find from an examination of the 
statistics in Tables II, IV and V that there is 
a slightly higher proportion of sentences, both 
death and life, to the total number of homi- 
cides in states where the choice is given than 
in the states where the absolute penalty pre- 
vails. In the seven states having the choice, 
where the figures of homicides are available, 
and in the five states with the arbitrary death 
penalty, there were in each group approxi- 
mately 8700 homicides during the eight years. 
The seven states were New Hampshire, 
Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Washington, 
Utah and California. In these seven states 


t United States Census Bureau. Prisoners and Juvenile De- 
linquents in the United States. 1910. 


CHOICE OF PUNISHMENT 27 


there were 930 sentences of death and life 
imprisonment combined, a ratio of one sen- 
tence to every 9.3 homicides. In the other 
group there were 717 sentences, a ratio of one 
sentence to every 12 homicides. If we in- 
clude with the seven states six abolition 
states (Maine, Rhode Island, Michigan, Wis- 
consin, Minnesota and Kansas), we find for 
the period a total of 11,700 homicides, with 
a total of 1256 sentences, producing again a 
ratio of one sentence for every 9.3 homicides. 
These figures in my opinion are reliably indi- 
cative of a somewhat greater facility in obtain- 
ing convictions in homicide cases in those 
states which have abolished the death penalty 
and in those which permit a choice between 
the death penalty and life imprisonment than 
in the ones which cling to the absolute imposi- 
tion of death. 

It is appropriate at this point to consider 
what substitute can be offered to take the 
place of the death penalty. Many have been 
suggested, but the one which is here proposed 
in my opinion not only meets those objections 
which are always raised to the substitution of 
life imprisonment in place of the death penalty 
but embodies in itself many inherent advan- 
tages. 


28 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


Upon conviction of murder in the first 
degree, the defendant shall be sentenced to 
life imprisonment. 

Prisoners serving life sentences shall receive 
no time allowance for commutation or com- 
pensation until commuted to a definite term. 

No prisoner serving a life sentence shall be 
pardoned or commuted by the Governor until 
he has served at least twenty years. actual 
time unless the Court of Appeals shall make 
an order or decree in which the majority of 
its members must concur, to the effect that: 

a. Evidence which was not known at the 
time of the trial or which was not pre- 
sented to the court or jury creates a 
probable doubt of the guilt of the 
accused, or, 

b. Facts or circumstances exist which in 
the opinion of the Court make a case 
for executive clemency consideration. 

After a prisoner shall have served twenty 
years actual time he shall be eligible for pardon 
or for commutation to a lesser term than life, 
and if commuted to a definite term of years, 
may thereafter earn commutation and com- 
pensation. 

A substantial percentage of the earnings of 
the prisoner shall be applied to the support of 


THE DEATH PENALTY 29 


his dependants and to the support of the de- 
pendants of the person killed, to be appor- 
tioned in the discretion of the Superintendent 
of Prisons. 


Experience with the Death Penalty 


We are now ready to enter upon the second 
phase of this study—a consideration of actual 
experience throughout the country, first with 
respect to the operation of the death penalty 
and second with respect to life imprisonment. 
Viewing the country as a whole, what are the 
ascertainable facts regarding the imposition 
and execution of the death penalty? In 
twenty-three of the states where capital 
punishment is retained on the statute books 
accurate statistics of sentences and executions 
have been secured from the wardens of the 
state prisons (Tables II, V and IX). During 
the eight years from 1912 to I919 inclusive, 
there were 722 sentenced to death in these 
states; of this number 512 were subsequently 
executed. 29.08% after being sentenced to 
death escaped payment of the final penalty. 
In the various states the percentage of those 
sentenced who were subsequently executed 
ranges from as low as 35% and 37% in Arizona 
and Utah to as high as 100% in Delaware and 


30 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


New Hampshire. New York with the largest 
number sentenced, 145, executed only 61%. 
Having regard to the number of sentences 
and the percentage of executions, the record of 
Pennsylvania was the best, 77 sentenced and 
of these, 75, or 97%, executed. Yet it is sur- 
prising to learn that the homicide rate of 
Pennsylvania over the period of eight years 
was the highest in the North Atlantic group 
of states. Even more striking is the fact that 
Pennsylvania and Connecticut combined, exe- 
cuted 98 out of 103 who were sentenced (95%) 
and during the period had a combined homi- 
cide rate of 4.7. Massachusetts and New 
Jersey combined, executed 42 out of 57 (70%) 
with a combined homicide rate of 3.75. Com- 
pare also New York, where 61% of the 145 who 
were sentenced were executed, with Pennsyl- 
vania, where 97% of those sentenced were ex- 
ecuted. The New York homicide rate for the 
period was 4.6, the Pennsylvania rate, 5.7. 


Massachusetts and New York Compared 


In New York, from 1912 to 1921, inclusive, 
193 persons were sentenced to death of whom 
I17 were subsequently executed. In Massa- 
chusetts during the same period 13 were 
sentenced to death of whom 10 were executed, 


EXECUTIONS AND HOMICIDES 31 


yet Massachusetts had a far lower homicide 
rate, 2.8, as compared with 4.6 for New York. 
This in spite of the fact that New York, 
- approximately two and two-thirds times the 
size of Massachusetts in population sentenced 
to death fifteen times as many murderers 
and executed eleven times as many. (Table 
III). In these instances we have not only a 
greater number of convictions and a greater 
number of sentences in the states with the 
higher rates but also greater certainty of 
execution. It cannot be said that failure to 
carry out the death sentence had any appreci- 
able influence upon the higher rates 


Executions and Homicides 


These states have been tabulated with 
reference to their homicide rates and the per- 
centage of death sentences carried into effect 
(Table IX); I am unable to trace any con- 
nection between the proportion of executions 
to sentences and the relative standing with 
reference to homicide rates. In those states 
where figures of homicides are available, I 
have computed both the proportion of sen- 
tences and the proportion of executions to 
each one hundred homicides, dividing the eight 
years into two periods of four years each. 


32. MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


(Tables V and VI). Again it is impossible to 
trace apparent relation between the homicide 
rate in any particular state and the existing 
proportion of sentences and executions per 
one hundred homicides. Some very striking 
comparisons exist, however, between different 
states. Virginia, which has a high homicide 
rate, executed 4.0 murderers in the first 
period for each one hundred homicides which 
occurred, and in the second period, 2.2; where- 
as Massachusetts, with a homicide rate less 
than a third the size of Virginia’s executed for 
every one hundred homicides, 1.5 in the first 
period and 0.5 in the second. This means 
that in the second period Massachusetts 
executed one person for every two hundred 
homicides, Virginia one for every fifty. In- 
diana, also with a low homicide rate, in the 
first period executed less than one person per 
one hundred homicides, in the second period 
none. In the case of Vermont and New 
Hampshire we seem at first glance to observe 
some relation between executions and the 
number of homicides, inasmuch as Vermont in 
the first period executed at the rate of 7.4 
persons per one hundred homicides and had 
a very low homicide rate. However, New 
Hampshire had an equally low rate and exe- 


PROPORTION TO HOMICIDES 33 


cuted none in the same period, while in the 
second period, both rates continuing low, 
conditions were just the reverse, Vermont 
executing none and New Hampshire at the 
rate of 8.0 persons per one hundred homicides. 
It should be kept in mind that none of these 
figures are for single years; they cover periods 
of sufficient length so that if executions had 
any effect on the homicide rate, such effect 
would be clearly reflected. 


Death Sentences and Executions, Proportion to Hom- 

icides 

These data have been tabulated in Table VI 
to show the comparative number of homicides 
to each individual sentenced to death and to 
each individual executed. The comparisons 
range from one out of every nineteen who 
committed homicide sentenced to death in 
Vermont, to one out of every one hundred and 
twenty in Indiana; and from one out of every 
twenty-eight who committed homicide execut- 
ed in Vermont to one out of every three 
hundred in Indiana. A graphic summary is 
presented in Chart VIII covering the data 
for twelve states which retain capital pun- 
ishment and for which homicide statistics are 
complete. 


34 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


I have made calculations for the United 
States as a whole from homicide statistics 
for the Registration Area and from returns 
of death sentences and executions received 
from the wardens of the various state prisons. 
During the first period of four years (1912- 
I915) there were approximately 13,700 homi- 
cides in the twenty-four states for which 
statistics are available, seven of which are 
without capital punishment. This is an 
average of nearly 3500 per year. During the 
second period (1916-1919) there were approxi- 
mately 15,950, an annual average of nearly 
4000. During the first period there were 
imposed in the seventeen capital punishment 
states 227 death sentences, in the second 
period 256, averaging per year 57 and 64 in the 
respective periods. The number of these 
sentences carried into execution were 161 for 
the first period and 187 for the second, averag- 
ing per year 40 and 47. The annual averages 
for the eight years are 3710 homicides, 60 
sentences of death, 43 of which were carried 
out. Thus, roughly speaking, one out of every 
eighty-five committing homicide suffers the 
extreme penalty. These data secured from 
entirely different sources tend to corroborate 
Mr. Bye’s conclusions: 


PROPORTION TO HOMICIDES 35 


“Figuring the number of homicides (as based on 
U.S. mortality statistics) at 7 per 100,000 inhabitants, 
and taking the population in that year (1917) at 
100,000,000, there must have been about 7,000 homi- 
cides in the United States in 1917. That means that 
only one man in eighty who commits a homicide 
suffers death for it. Taking the five year average of 
100 executions annually, it means that for about 
every 70 homicides one person is hanged or elec- 
trocuted. . . . These figures render the deterrent 
argument in favor of capital punishment extremely 
weak.’’? 


I have said that the murderer rarely considers 
the penalty. In those rare cases where the 
future consequences do enter into his mental 
calculations, he regards himself as almost cer- 
tain to be one of the eighty-four who escape. 

Then too, it frequently happens that when 
more than one is involved, the guiltiest man, 
the one who planned and had most to do with 
committing the crime is the first to seek aid of 
the authorities. He trades his information 
and bargains the lives of his confederates 
for aid and clemency. And because of the 
inherent difficulty in securing murder convic- 
tions, this practice is encouraged by our prose- 
cuting officers. On the other hand I have 
known a number of men who have been exe- 


t Capital Punishment in the United States—Raymond T. Bye. 


36 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


cuted who were morally and ethically innocent 
of the crime of murder; they were implicated 
in a felony in the course of which murder was 
committed and for this paid the penalty which 
the law prescribed. 


Efficiency in England and Canada 
Contrasted with United States 


The British Isles and Canada are often cited 
as striking examples of countries where the 
death penalty is a strong deterrent of capital 
crime. The following facts are quoted from 
an article on ‘‘Recent Statistics Relating to 
Crime in Chicago’’ which appeared in the 
Journal of Criminal Law for November, 1922. 


‘In Canada in two successive years there were for 
indictable offenses approximately 20% of acquittals 
and 80% of convictions, while in Chicago in the same 
time there were approximately 71% of dismissals or 
acquittals and only 28 or 29 percent of convictions. 
These statistics present a challenge to the thoughtful 
citizen. Has the administration of criminal justice 
in Chicago become so inefficient or corrupt or both 
that out of every one hundred felony charges, only 28 
or 29 result in convictions, whereas in the courts of 
Canada or in England approximately 75 or 80 out of 
every one hundred persons tried for similar offenses 
are found guilty.” 


EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED 37 


A comparison of the very accurate English 
statistics (Tables XXVIII, XXIX, XXX) 
with our American figures points very con- 
clusively to the fact that the number of death 
sentences and the number of executions in 
proportion to population have little effect in 
determining the amount of capital crime. We 
find in England a percentage of death sent- 
ences carried into execution noticeably lower 
than in our own country as a whole or in most 
of the states individually considered. But on 
the other hand we cannot fail to be impressed 
with the remarkable certainty with which 
judicial action follows the commission not 
only of crimes of murder but of all crimes. 

Part of the English data was secured from 
the British Home Office and in transmitting 
it, the Assistant Secretary, Sir Ernley Black- 
well, comments as follows: 


“The figures should be compared with figures relat- 
ing to other countries where capital punishment does 
not exist, and countries where a very large proportion 
of murders committed do not lead to any arrests 
being made. The object of the return was really to 
show how few cases of murder in this country can be 
classed ‘undiscovered’ murders, that is to say, mur- 
ders in which the murderer remains undetected and 
untraced.”’ 


38 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


In twelve states of the United States (New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Con- 
necticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Utah and Cali- 
fornia) during the eight years from 1912 to 
I919 there were 19,775 homicides, 467 sen- 
tences to death and 336 executions (Chart 
VIII). The population of these twelve states 
for 1920 was forty-two million. In England 
and Wales during the eight years from 1913 
to 1920 there were 2174 homicides, 184 sen- 
tences to death and 99 executions (Table 
XXIX). The population of England and 
Wales for I192I was just under thirty-eight 
million. In the twelve American states with 
only twelve percent more population, we 
find nine times as many homicides, in spite of 
the fact that there were two and a half times 
as many persons sentenced to death and three 
and a half times as many executed. In the 
United States 71.9% of death sentences were 
carried into execution; in England and Wales 
53-7% of those sentenced were subsequently 
executed. 

In New York State with a population of ten 
and a half million during the ten years from 
I9I12 to 1921, there were 4626 homicides, 
193 sentences to death and 117 executions. 


EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED 39 


In England and Wales during the same period 
there were 2668 homicides, 231 sentences to 
death and 125 executions. There were thus 
almost as many death sentences and execu- 
tions in New York as in England and Wales, 
yet with a population only about a quarter 
the size, there were 75% more homicides. In 
New York State 60.6% of death sentences were 
carried out; in England and Wales only 53.7%. 

The efficiency and accuracy of English 
police methods are proverbial. Statistics 
show that during ten years in England and 
Wales there were 1491 murder crimes known 
to the police (Table XXIX). The number of 
persons actually tried for murder with respect 
to these crimes was 548, of whom 237 were 
convicted, and 231 were sentenced to death. 
In New York County during five years ending 
June 30, 1923 there were 303 indictments for 
murder in the first degree and 12 convictions. 
In Kings County for four years ending June 
30, 1923 there were 136 indictments and 15 
convictions. 

I have read with great interest a document 
published by the English Government and 
secured through the British Library of Infor- 
mation in New York—The Annual Report of 
Judicial Statistics for England and Wales. 


40 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


Its careful perusal and study by all who are 
interested in the attempt to secure more 
complete and accurate data in this country is 
well worth while. Thestatistics on this and the 
next pagehavebeen taken from this document— 
a striking commentary on the efficiency of the 
administration of criminal law in England. 

In the year 1921 there were 8,934 persons 
for trial in the chief criminal courts of Eng- 
land and Wales. 1,712 were acquitted, 57 
were found insane either on arraignment or by 
verdict, and in 13 cases there was no prose- 
cution. The remainder, 7,152, were convicted. 
Of those convicted, 5,243 were sentenced to 
imprisonment, penal servitude or death (13 
to death). 1,745 were placed on probation 
or in Borstal Institutions and 164 were other- 
wise disposed of. (Table XXX). 

In the courts of Summary Jurisdiction 
where minor offenses are disposed of, 576,139 
persons were tried, of whom 447,827 were 
convicted. With this very high percentage 
of convictions there were only 80 appeals in 
the Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions, 
the chief criminal courts (in 31 cases judgment 
was affirmed and in 49 cases conviction was 
quashed, including 30 in which other sentences 
were substituted) and 280 appeals from con- 


EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED = 4 


victions in the minor courts. This is a re- 
markable testimonial to the efficiency of the 
police methods and of the judicial machinery. 

The following statistics of murder prosecu- 
tions offer still further evidence of this effi- 


ciency. 
Annual Annual Year 
Average Average 1921 
IgI2-16 =I9I7-2I1 


Crimes (indictable offenses) 


of murder known to police. . 92 99 go 
Persons tried for murder..... 57 68 63 
Proportion per 100,000 pop... 0.15 0.18 0.17 
Of the total number on trial for murder (1921)....... 63 
There were found guilty on arraignment........... yi 
PR RICtR ERT et elra ye ee ci, ay araly ain’ 4 lary Maw Biel's 27 
Special verdict, guilty but insane............5.... 14 
UME EMEA ET IN a a aw hls Saha pial a a ye la aia cack bee HG 13 
Meare SWC SOOSEE TIL Ly hk AA oe ke tinleee ee ees 2 


Of the 13 persons sentenced to death, 8 were commuted to 
penal servitude for life. 


French Statistics| 


Table XXXI is a compilation of statistics 
furnished by the French Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs. These statistics are noteworthy in 
that they disclose on the one hand, a very high 
number of indictments in proportion to homi- 
cide, a large proportion of those indicted 
brought to trial and convicted, and on the 
other hand a very small proportionate number 


42 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


of death sentences and of executions. Inthe 
four years, 1913, 1919, 1920 and 1921, there 
were 5719 homicides but only 154 sentences to 
death, of whom 48 (31%) were subsequently 
executed. In spite of the small number of 
death sentences and of the large proportion of 
those sentenced who failed to be executed, 
France had a low homicide rate as compared 
with the United States. We see in France 
another example of a country with capital 
punishment, with a low homicide rate, in 
which very few murder trials result in death 
sentences and in which a small percentage of 
death sentences are subsequently carried into 
execution. In many of our own states with 
homicide rates twice the size of France’s we 
find far higher proportions of death sentences 
to homicides and far greater certainty of 
execution. 

My own opinion, which is borne out by sta- 
tistics, is that the comparatively small num- 
ber of homicides in Canada and England and in 
France is due to the accuracy, the certainty and 
the celerity of justice as administered in those 
countries rather than to the form or severity 
of the punishment. We cannot avoid the 
conclusion that the sureness of detection, 
reflected in the number of prosecutions in 


EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED 43 


proportion to crimes, the certainty of punish- 
ment reflected in the number of convictions, 
the celerity and accuracy of punishment, re- 
flected in the few appeals, are the determining 
factors in the very low proportion of homicidal 
and other crimes rather than the severity of 
the punishment which is meted out. The 
deterrent effect of a law seems not to depend 
on the ugliness of its threat. 

In Kings County from July Ist, 1919 to 
June 30th, 1923 for the crimes of Assault, 
Manslaughter, Murder, Robbery, Burglary 
and Larceny in the various degrees there was 
a total of five thousand seven hundred and 
fifteen indictments. The number who pleaded 
guilty to, or were convicted of, the crime as 
charged in the indictment, was eight hundred 
and ninety-one. In New York County for 
the same crimes and for the period from June 
30, 1918 to June 30, 1923 there was a total of 
fourteen thousand five hundred and eighty- 
nine indictments from which there resulted 
twelve hundred and ninety-eight convictions 
after trial and fifty-one hundred and eighty- 
six convictions on pleas of guilty. These 
figures of convictions in New York County 
include convictions in lesser degree than the 
offense charged in the indictment so that no 


44 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


comparison can be drawn between the twa 
counties. 

The statistics in Table XIX were secured 
as a result of correspondence with the Attor- 
neys General and other state officials and so 
far as they go are probably accurate. 


New York State Statistics of Death Sentences 


I have no doubt that many persons will be 
surprised to learn that in our own state, since 
1889, a trifle more than one-third (34.9%) of 
all prisoners who were sentenced to death 
escaped being executed. From the prison 
records in the state I have made tabulations 
as to the age, the nativity and the subsequent 
disposition of these prisoners. From Decem- 
ber, 1889 up to October, 1923, four hundred and 
fifty-eight persons have been sentenced to 
death in this state. Of these, two hundred and 
ninety-eight, or just under 66% were executed 
and sixteen are now in prison (October 1923) 
awaiting execution. 

A very suggestive fact is that one hundred 
and twenty-seven of these prisoners were 
born in Italy. This is especially significant 
in view of the very low homicide rate in Italy 
where capital punishment has been abolished 
for more than thirty years. Two hundred 


LIFE IMPRISONMENT STATISTICS 45 


and sixteen, or not quite one-half of these 
prisoners were native born; twenty-five were 
Germans, fifteen were Russians and the 
remainder were divided among twenty-four 
nationalities. As to age, the greatest number 
were between twenty-one and twenty-five, 
27% being included in that group. Not 
quite 8% were twenty years or under and 55% 
were thirty or under. A complete tabulation 
of this data for the state as a whole is appended 
in Table VII. 


Life Imprisonment Statistics 


In a comprehensive and scientific study of 
capital punishment it is most important that 
we should know all that is possible with regard 
to the life sentence which at present is the 
only substitute for the death penalty. Be- 
cause it is axiomatic that we should not 
abandon the execution of murderers unless 
we are satisfied that society can be protected 
at least as well, if indeed not better, by some 
other method. The reformation of the crim- 
inal is most important, but it is secondary in 
importance to the safety and security of 
society. I know that a strong impression 
prevails that life sentences mean little—that 
the majority of “‘ Lifers, ’’ so-called, are released 


46 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


after serving comparatively short terms in 
prison either through executive clemency or 
by court action. 

I have been able to secure data from a 
large majority of the states pertaining to 
all prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment 
during the years 1912 to I919 inclusive, 
showing their status on January I, 1923. 
A questionnaire was sent to the warden 
of each state prison throughout the United 
States requesting a statement of the number 
of persons sentenced to life imprisonment 
during these eight years and showing as of 
January I, 1923, the number who had died 
or been declared insane, the number com- 
muted, released, or discharged by the courts, 
and the number who were still in prison on 
that day. Comprehensive answers were re- 
ceived from three-quarters of our states and 
this information has been tabulated in Tables 
IV and IX. In these tables there has been 
computed for each state the percentage of the 
total number sentenced to life imprisonment 
during the period, who were commuted, dis- 
charged or otherwise released, and wherever 
the homicide rate statistics were available, 
these have also been given for the eight years 
under consideration. 


STATISTICS FOR NEW YORK STATE 47 


An examination of Table IV reveals the fact 
that for the states which have complete statis- 
tics there was a total of 2936 persons sen- 
tenced to life imprisonment during the eight 
years, and that of this entire number only 651 
had been released by pardon, commutation 
or court action on January Ist, 1923. (See 
also Chart VII.) In other words, 77% of 
these prisoners were still serving their sen- 
tences or had died or become insane. A con- 
trast between the number of life prisoners 
released and the number of death sentences 
which failed of execution is presented by Table 
IX and Charts VI and VII. 29% of death 
sentences failed of execution; 23% of life 
prisoners were released. 


Statistics for New York State 


I have made a separate tabulation of similar 
data for New York State. (Table VIII.) Ido 
not know of any attempt to collect these 
data for my own state although their value in 
the study of this problem is obvious. Dur- 
ing the eight years from I912 to 1919, inclu- 
sive, there were received in the New York 
State Prisons under sentence of twenty years 
to life, or life imprisonment commuted from 
death, a total of 282 prisoners. Of these, 


48 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


there were still in prison on January Ist, 
1923, 192, or 68.09%. Only 29 (10.29%) had 
been released by commutation or pardon 
and 9 (3.19%) by reversal of judgment. 
86.15% of the total number received were 
either in prison on the date mentioned or had 
died or become insane and were inmates of 
the Hospital for Criminal Insane. The num- 
ber of prisoners under sentence of life or 
twenty years to life who have become insane © 
is astonishingly large. In New York during 
the period of eight years more prisoners of 
this class were declared insane than were 
commuted or pardoned. (11.32% declared 
insane, 10.29% commuted or pardoned). Not 
only is this true of this class, but many mur- 
derers have been executed who were medically, 
if not legally insane. ‘There are many border 
line cases—men who, if they had not com- 
mitted the particular crime, if they had re- 
mained in the outside population would sooner 
or later have been committed to insane 
institutions. Murderers may be divided 
roughly into two groups. First, the usually 
normal, dependable type, who in a moment 
of great mental stress commit the crime 
and who are, except for that one moment 
of their lives, normal individuals. Second, 


CONTROL OF LIFE PRISONERS = 49 


the abnormal type, including those really 
insane, the border line cases, the defectives 
and moral delinquents and those with low 
mental development. Many of these latter 
have a mentality as low as that of a six year old 
child. These are the ones, without friends and 
without money, that usually go to the electric 
chair. 


Control of Life Prisoners 


So far as the control of these prisoners in 
the prison is concerned I believe that nearly 
all wardens are united in agreeing that as a 
group they constitute the most reliable and 
dependable men in the institution. Ina great 
majority of cases the murderer is not a crim- 
inal in his nature as we ordinarily understand 
this term. Given places of trust and respon- 
sibility, as they often are, these men invariably 
make good. This is confirmed by Sir Basil 
Thompson of Scotland Yard, who says: 


“You have to be in charge of a prison in order to 
realize that the murderer is rarely a criminal by na- 
ture. But for the Grace of God he is just you or I, 
only more unlucky. The murderer is repentant and 
is thinking only how he can earn an honest living after 
he is discharged; the others are thinking out schemes 
of fresh adventure.”’ 


50 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


To the same effect is the testimony of Pro- 
fessor L. N. Robinson in his book, Penology 
an the United States. An editorial in the 
Ottawa Citizen last summer, referring to the 
action of Governor Donahay of Ohio in taking 
two life convicts with him on a fishing trip is 
equally illuminating: 


“‘It should serve as a needed object lesson to those 
Canadians whose faith in modern prison methods has 
perhaps been somewhat shaken by the recent Rogers | 
episode. The fact that the Governor was willing to 
trust himself and his two sons in the company of two 
convicts serving terms for capital offenses is illustra- 
tive of the great advance in the attitude of vested 
authority towards its charges . . . the Governor’s 
words, ‘We never have any trouble with these men; 
we trust them as ourselves, and in this way many 
such men have risen from the depths’ explains the 
success of his system.”’ 


When we analyze the records of the men 
convicted of murder we become impressed by 
the preponderance of those who were never 
before convicted of any crime. In Sing Sing 
during six recent consecutive years, 124 men 
were received under death sentence. Of these, 
89 (71.8%) had never before been convicted 
of crime. 35 (28.2%) had records of previous 
convictions. Very nearly three out of every 


CONTROL OF LIFE PRISONERS © 51 


four had committed the crime of murder as a 
first offense. During five recent consecutive 
years, 180 inmates of Sing Sing who had been 
convicted for various degrees of homicide, 
were paroled after serving the minimum terms 
of their sentences. Of these 180 men only 
3 were brought back for violation of parole, 
and in these 3 cases the violations were minor 
ones and the men were compelled to serve 
only a few additional months. This is truly a 
remarkable record. During the past twenty 
years I have personally known a great many 
men who have been commuted from death to 
life imprisonment. There is a considerable 
group in Sing Sing today, and without ex- 
ception they are quiet, dependable, trust- 
worthy. Many are in places of responsibility 
and except for that one deed they are in every 
way fitted and worthy to be normal and useful 
members of society. 

There is however an aspect to the problem 
which must receive serious consideration— 
I mean the danger of a prisoner under sentence 
of life imprisonment committing another mur- 
der in the prison. I have no doubt that in 
some states, in some institutions, it may be 
considered necessary to retain the death pen- 
alty in order to restrain the commission of 


52 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


such crimes. Under the theory that the state 
may use what means are necessary, and no 
more, to protect society, we may, perhaps, justi- 
fy execution for the murderer who commits 
another murder in prison—for the “born 
killer’? type. But these are few in number. 
One warden in an abolition state writes me: 


“We have at this time twenty-two lifers in this 
institution and I am free to state that with the excep- 
tion of two they have the best records in the prison 
and give us the least trouble. The two serving life 
terms who are unmanageable are classified as crimin- 
ally insane, and of course, for this reason the fact 
that their lives would be taken if they took a life 
would not prevent them from doing so.” 


There is disagreement among wardens who 
favor abolition generally, on this particular 
question and it is undoubtedly debatable 
eround. Sufficient data are not available to 
establish a really definite conclusion. 
However, if the punishment for first degree 
murder which I have outlined (p. 28) was in- 
corporated in the law, I believe this problem 
would not be presented and there would be 
no difficulty in controlling the murderer in 
prison. There would always exist the possi- 
bility of commutation after twenty years’ con- 
finement which would certainly be lost if 


LYNCHING 53 


another murder was committed. I do not 
believe the death penalty is any more of 
a deterrent to the man in prison serving a 
life sentence than it is to those outside of 
prison. To the “born killer’? type no de- 
terrent is effective. They present ‘the same 
problem as the dangerous insane and should 
be controlled in the same manner. 


Lynching 

A presentation of the case against capital 
punishment should include at least a brief 
discussion of the effect of the death penalty 
upon lynchings. This topic has been very 
exhaustively treated by Mr. Bye in his 
essay and I cannot do better than to quote 
a few of his pertinent findings as to the 
facts and the conclusions to be drawn from 
them. He shows that in the twenty-eight 
years covered by the statistics, the five states 
that were without capital punishment during 
that period had a total of 26 lynchings, 20 of 
which were in Kansas. Maine and Rhode 
Island had none, Michigan 4 and Wisconsin 2. 
Minnesota, which abolished capital punish- 
ment in 1911 had 4 in the pre-abolition period, 
none afterward. He presents a table showing 
the number of lynchings for each state during 


54 MAN'S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


the whole period, which it is not necessary to 
quote in detail. Healso presents a table giving 
the fifteen states which legally executed the 
greatest number of criminals during the 
twenty-eight years and points out the fact 
that included in this list of fifteen states are 
all but one of the ten states having the greatest 
number of lynchings to their discredit. Very 
much to the point he asks this question: 


“Tf capital punishment is the remedy to keep down 
the number of lynchings, it may pertinently be 
asked, why is it that the very states which use it the 
most have the greatest number of lynchings?”’ 


He sums up the whole question of lynchings as 
affected by capital punishment with this very 
sane and well-substantiated logical conclu- 
sion: 


‘“‘It has been established, then, that the theory that 
capital punishment is necessary to prevent the popular 
demand for stern punishment of certain classes of 
offenders from breaking out into lynch law has but a 
limited application, if any. While the prevalence of 
lynchings in some parts of the country does appear 
to indicate a belief in retributive justice on the part 
of the people, it seems to be found only in unstable 
societies where frontier conditions prevail, or where 
racial mixtures create a pressing social problem. 
Practically only the latter of these causes is operative 


GENERAL DEDUCTIONS 55 


today in this country. Lynching, therefore, is con- 
fined mainly to the Southern states and rests largely 
on race prejudice. In other parts of the country the 
abolition of capital punishment has resulted in no 
increase in lynchings. In the south the death penalty 
is used more than anywhere else in the United States, 
yet lynchings have prevailed there to an alarming 
degree. If there is any validity in the theory that 
capital punishment prevents lynchings, it has not 
appeared so here, and it is evident—particularly in 
view of the trivial nature of the offenses for which 
many lynchings take place—that if it is to do so it 
must be used far more extensively than it is at present. 
It is at least possible that a more certain administra- 
tion of the criminal law will be as effective in this 
direction as a more vigorous use of punishment by 
death. Furthermore, the extension of the death 
penalty which the theory logically entails is contrary 
to the trend of evolution and is not likely to take 
place. Lynchings are decreasing rapidly in frequency, 
and the problem is apparently solving itself. The 
lynching argument, therefore, need not stand in the 
way of the eventual abolition of capital punishment.” 


General Deductions as to Application 


From the foregoing data I believe that at 
this point we may safely draw a few general 
conclusions regarding the application of the 
death penalty. 

First. The death sentence is spasmodic 
and uncertain in its application. No other 


56 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


punishment lacks to so marked a degree that 
most important of all elements, certainty of 
execution. 

SECOND. In states where any choice is 
permitted juries and even courts are loath to 
impose the extreme penalty of death. While 
it remains on the statute books, it becomes 
in practice what has so been aptly termed a 
vestigial remnant. | 

TuirD. Life imprisonment is not so un- 
certain as it has been or is popularly supposed 
to be, nor is it so difficult of application. It 
presents the opportunity for individualization 
of treatment which is a very necessary element 
in any system of punishment. 

FourtTH. There is a somewhat greater 
facility in obtaining convictions for homicide 
in abolition states and in those which permit 
a choice between life imprisonment and 
the death penalty, than in the states which 
arbitrarily impose death. 


Opinions of Penological Experts 


It is appropriate at this point to examine 
the attitude and opinions of men throughout . 
the country who have given consideration to 
this problem because of close contact with it 
in all its phases. Ex-Governor Davis of Ohio, 


OPINIONS OF PENOLOGICAL EXPERTS 57 


a thoughtful writer on capital punishment, 
says: 


“Because of the practical obstacles in the way of 
a universal application of the death penalty in all 
murder cases or even to all genuinely first degree 
cases, the certain taking away of the criminal’s 
freedom for life, with an unavoidable minimum of 
twenty years, would serve as a much more effective 
warning to a potential murderer susceptible to any 
kind of warning, than does the mere spasmodic and 
unequal application of the death penalty as now in 
operation.’’* 


And Professor Bye, in his essay, Capital 
Punishment in the United States, well char- 
acterizes our use of this means of punishment: 


“The death penalty today is a mere remnant, a 
left-over from the days when the repressive theory of 
criminology held sway—a vestigial organ which has 
ceased to function from lack of exercise. It is too 
rarely used to prove a very efficacious deterrent, yet 
its occasional use renders it a ridiculous and pur- 
poseless outrage. For as it is now applied, the death 
penalty is nothing but an arbitrary discrimination 
against an occasional victim. It cannot even be 
said that it is reserved as a weapon of retributive 
justice for the most atrocious criminals. . 

“Waiving, then, the doubtful question as to whether 
deterrence is at all a proper object of punishment, the 
facts and reasoning presented clearly lead to the con- 


tHarry L. Davis, Death by Law. 


58 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


clusion that the death penalty is not to be defended 
on the grounds of its deterrent effect. While death is 
probably as much feared by most men as any punish- 
ment, some are of such callous nature that they can 
never be restrained from crime by the threat of the 
gallows. Murders in particular are apt to be com- 
mitted under circumstances which preclude or out- 
weigh the thought of the prospective punishment. 
Moreover, criminals expect to escape the full penalty 
of the law. | 

‘‘Granted that if death were certain to be meted out 
to every murderer few would be so foolhardy or callous 
as to incur it, the fact remains it is in practice seldom 
applied. . . . Reprieves, retrials, commutations and 
pardons have become so general that few suffer death 
even after conviction. Statistics show that legal 
executions have become so rare, in fact, that it is 
absurd to attribute much deterrent effect to capital 
punishment as at present applied. It has become in 
practice a discriminatory persecution retained from 
a warped sense of justice resting in revenge, and 
from sheer inertia of conservatism.”’ 


Men of prominence in public life, students 
of criminology through wide experience, those 
who ponder deeply on these problems and 
who in life and practice come into close con- 
tact with them, are coming more and more to 
this belief. 

The judgment of the Wardens of our prisons 
as practical men, not as theorists, is entitled 


OPINIONS OF PENOLOGICAL EXPERTS 59 


to weight. Asa result of correspondence,’ I 
have been able to secure opinions on the sub- 
ject of capital punishment from nearly fifty 
of the Wardens throughout the country. Of 
these, seventeen have expressed their verdict 
against the death penalty; twenty-three are 
in favor of it and seven give qualified expres- 
sions of opinion about evenly divided for and 
against. If so many of these men who are 
in closest possible contact with actual con- 
ditions have lost faith in the efficacy of the 
death penalty as a deterrent of crime, is it 
not time that men and women everywhere 
who have vision should weigh the evidence and 
reflect upon the problem without prejudice? 
To the Governor of a state the infliction 
of the death penalty is a matter of very grave 
concern. It is to him that the last appeal is 
made, and in consequence, the conscientious 
man devotes grave consideration to this prob- 
lem. In the course of personal correspondence 
with a number of our state executives I have 
secured many interesting and forceful expres- 
- gions of opinion. These, together with other 
opinions and statements have been gathered 
in Appendix B. I realize of course, that for 
every opinion against capital punishment one 
equally strong in its favor may be secured, 


60 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


and that in a discussion of this character the 
scales cannot be tipped either way by weight of 
opinion alone. However, it is always interest- 
ing and often constructive to know what others 
think about any controversy and particularly 
to know the ideas and ideals of persons who 
are especially qualified to judge by experience, 
by training, by close contact and observation. 


Personal Opinion 


My own conviction against capital punish- 
ment is based upon personal experience of 
twenty years, upon contact with hundreds of 
murderers whom I have known and with whom 
I have talked in very solemn moments, upon 
close observation of what we choose to call 
“legal execution.”’ I have seen many men die 
in the electric chair.~.Under our laws the court 
sentences the murderer to die ‘‘during the 
week beginning . . .”’ The actual day and 
the hour within the week is my responsibility 
to fix. J alone determine the exact moment 
when that life shall be extinguished.» I always 
wonder afterward whether the world is any 
better off; whether what has been done in the 
name of the law is consistent with the spirit 
of religion, consistent with the right progress 
of civilization. 


FACTS JUSTIFYING OPINIONS 61 


Facts Justifying Opinions 

The question now presents itself, how far 
are these men, how far am I justified in these 
conclusions by the facts? To answer this 
question we must review some of these facts 
as they are indicated by the use of the homi- 
cide rate as a barometer. 

From statistics furnished by the United 
states Census Bureau showing the death rate 
from homicides per one hundred thousand 
population for the years 1911 to 1921, inclusive, 
for all states in the Registration Area, I have 
prepared a series of tables to exemplify a 
comparison of the combined average homicide 
rates in various groups of abolition and capital 
punishment states. For the purpose of this 
comparison these states have been grouped 
according to geographical divisions. In the 
North Atlantic Division are included nine 
states. Two of these, Maine and Rhode 
Island, have long since abolished capital 
punishment; the other seven all retain the 
death penalty. In the Central Division, 
~ Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas and Minnesota 
are the abolition states. Missouri tried the 
experiment in 1917 but restored the death 
penalty two years later. In the Western 
Division, Washington abolished capital pun- 


62 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


ishment in I913 to restore it again in I9QI9Q. 
Oregon abolished it in 1914 to restore it again 
in 1920. Restoration in these three states is 
undoubtedly to be attributed to the after 
effects of the war and to the generally dis- 
turbed and unsettled economic conditions 
which ensued. In neither state does there 
appear to have been an increase in the num- 
ber of murders as reflected in the homicide 
rates which justified public sentiment in de- 
manding restoration. Oregon is not used in 
the comparison tables as the homicide figures 
of that state are available for four years only. 

Table X sets forth the combined averages 
in the North Atlantic Division. It will be 
observed that the combined average rates in 
the abolition states are in general lower than 
in the capital punishment states. The first 
column of rates shows the combined averages 
for the two abolition states, Maine and Rhode 
Island; the second column shows the combined 
averages for the two states which are similar 
in population, conditions of industry and 
general characteristics, New Hampshire and 
Connecticut. During the first six years of the 
comparison the rate in the abolition states 
is slightly higher, but after 1912 except for the 
two years 1916 and 1921 it remains consistent- 


FACTS JUSTIFYING OPINIONS = 63 


ly below the rate in the capital punishment 
group. The third column gives the combined 
average rate for all states in this group which 
retain the death penalty. This rate is higher 
throughout but does not present so fair a basis 
of comparison. The combined average rate 
over the whole period for the seven states 
which retain capital punishment is 3.46 as 
compared with the rate of Maine and Rhode 
Island at 2.49. The rate for the two com- 
parable states, New Hampshire and Con- 
necticut, is just a fraction over 2.5. 

Table XI presents a comparison of the 
combined average rate for Michigan and 
Minnesota, abolition states, with that of Ohio 
and Indiana where the death penalty is re- 
tained. The Wisconsin rate has not been used 
for purposes of comparison, although lower 
than that of any other state in this group. 
The four states selected are more comparable 
in general character both as to population and 
industrial conditions. Kansas was omitted 
because the figures were not complete, and 
_ Missouri on account of the fact that abolition 
was tried for two years only making a com- 
parison over the whole period impossible. It 
will be observed that the average rate in the 
two abolition states is lower throughout. The 


64 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


combined average rate for the whole period 
for Michigan and Minnesota is 3.8 as com- 
pared with 6.3 for Ohio and Indiana. 

Table XII presents a comparison of the 
rate for Washington, the only state in the 
Western Division which tried abolition and 
which has complete figures for the period, 
with the combined rates for Montana, Utah, 
Colorado and California. It should be kept 
in mind that capital punishment was restored 
in Washington in 1919. The average rate 
for Washington for the entire period was 
6.6; the combined average rate for the four 
capital punishment states was 9.7. 

Table XIV presents a comparison of the 
combined average rates for five abolition 
states (Maine, Rhode Island, Michigan, Kan- 
sas and Minnesota) contrasted with the com- 
bined average rates for five states comparable 
in geographical location, character of popula- 
tion and industrial conditions, which have 
capital punishment. It is perhaps as com- 
prehensively accurate a comparison as can be 
made considering available homicide statis- 
tics, and reveals to a very striking degree the 
fact that there are less homicides in the aboli- 
tion states than in those which cling to capital 
punishment. 


HOMICIDE RATE CHARTS 65 


Homicide Rate Charts 


These combined average rates have also 
been plotted on charts. (Charts I, IT, ITI, and 
IV). The broken black line represents the 
variations from year to year in the combined 
average rate in the abolition states. The solid 
black line represents the variation for the 
capital punishment states. A striking simi- 
larity in the variation of the two curves will 
be noticed. This is particularly true in the 
Central and Western Divisions and is also 
characteristic of the Eastern. It is also strik- 
ingly true in the comparison of the combined 
rates of the six abolition states with the rate 
for the whole Registration Area. (Chart IV). 
The fact that this variation occurs with con- 
siderable coincidence in each group indicates 
that the increase and decrease from one year 
to another in the number of homicides is due 
to general economic or sociological causes 
rather than to the nature of the penalty im- 
posed for murder. Crime comes in waves 
like the rising and falling of the tide, waves 
that are coincident with periods of unrest, 
with panics, with disturbances of capital 
and labor, with war. Homicides vary 
just as other crimes vary and for the same 
reasons. 


66 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


“When it is realized and fairly acknowledged that 
the taking of human life is to some extent an incident 
in the grouping of people in large communities and 
happens regardless of the penalty to be visited upon 
the offender we will have approached very near to the 
point where the propriety of the extreme penalty can 
be sanely and judicially determined.” * 


Further light is thrown on the question of 
the effect of the abolishment of capital punish- 
ment by a study of homicide rates in four 
abolition states of comparatively recent dates, 
in three of which capital punishment was later 
restored. Table XIII shows the rates for the 
three states, Washington, Oregon and Missouri 
and for Minnesota where it has been abolished 
since 1911. (See also Chart III.) These figures 
donot indicate any increase in the number of 
homicides due to abolition; in fact they indi- 
cate quite the reverse. In Washington in 1914, 
the first year after abolition, there was an 
increase in the rate from 6.5 to 10.0, but 
thereafter occurred a regular annual decrease 
to 4.2. ‘This was the rate in 1918 the year 
before restoration. After restoration in 1919, 
1920 and 1921 the rates were 7.5, 5.1 and 5.9. 
In Minnesota there has been no increase since 
IQII, the year of abolition, except in two years. 


t James J. Barbour, ‘‘The Death Penalty.’”? Journal of Crim- 
tnal Law. February, 1919. 


HOMICIDE RATE CHARTS 67 


The Minnesota rate for this whole period 
shows, in fact, very little variation, ranging 
from 2.8 to 3.4 except for the two years men- 
tioned. In Oregon, figures are available for 
four years only but the rate shows a decided 
increase since the restoration of capital punish- 
ment. In Missouri, abolition was tried for so 
short a period that it probably had little 
effect on the homicide rate. 

By an examination of the chart of the rates 
in three states where capital punishment was 
abolished a few years before the war, in two 
of which it was later restored largely because 
of popularreaction following the war (Chart ITT) 
we can discern concrete evidence of instances in 
which generally prevalent sociological and eco- 
nomic conditions were assumed by popular 
sentiment to be local conditions brought about 
by the abolition of the death penalty. The 
increases in the number of homicides in 1919 in 
Oregon and Washington were locally attributed 
to the fact that the death penalty was no longer 
a bogie to deter the murderer and as a result, 

capital punishment was restored. Governor 
Davis referring to these instances says: 


“Evidence indicates that when the universally 
noted increase in crime began to make itself evident 
in these states, by a corresponding rise in the number 


68 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


of murders, it was immediately attributed to the ab- 
sence of capital punishment, though in fact, other 
states where the death penalty was in operation were 
going through identically the same experience.’’* 


The chart shows, however, very plainly that 
this increase was part of a general trend. The 
combined rates in the four capital punishment 
states, Colorado, California, Utah and Mon- 
tana, increased as did the rate in Minnesota. 
We also find the same upward curve in both | 
groups in the North Atlantic Division, in the 
capital punishment group in the North Central 
Division, and in the combined rate for the 
whole Registration Area of the United States. 
In other words what people in these two states 
hastily and unthinkingly assumed to be an 
increase in the number of murders, due to the 
absence of the death penalty—an assumption 
upon which the successful campaign for restor- 
ation of capital punishment was based—was 
part of a general trend extending throughout 
the United States. 


Homicide Rates by States 


A further interesting presentation of the 
low homicide rates in the abolition states is 
contained in Tables XVI, XVII and XVIII. 


t Harry L. Davis, Death by Law. 


HOMICIDE RATES BY STATES ~ 69 


These give in detail the rates for the years 
1912 to 1921, inclusive, for all Registration 
States grouped by geographical divisions, 
together with: the relative position of each 
state in its respective group in each year. It 
will be observed that although the homicide 
rates vary from year to year, there is little 
variation in the relative position of the states. 
For instance, in the North Atlantic Division, 
Maine is first four times, second three times 
and third three times, while Pennsylvania, at 
the bottom of the group, is ninth nine times 
and eighth once. In the Central Division, 
Wisconsin is first throughout the period and 
the three abolition states, Wisconsin, Michi- 
gan and Minnesota are either first, second or 
third in every instance except one. This cog- 
nation again indicates as a cause of the homi- 
cide variation something other than the na- 
ture of the penalty. 

The averages over the whole period are 
illuminating. Maine, an abolition state, has 
for the period of ten years the lowest homicide 
rate in the country, 1.8. New Hampshire 
and Vermont where capital punishment is 
retained are a fraction higher, each having 
arate of 1.98. Rhode Island, also an abolition 
state, with a rate of 3.1 compares with Massa- 


70 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


chusetts and Connecticut at 2.88 and 3.69 
respectively. The figure for Rhode Island is 
significant in view of the fact that nearly one- 
third of its inhabitants are foreign born; that 
it contains a larger proportion of aliens than 
any other state in the Union. Massachusetts 
presents a surprisingly low homicide rate for 
a state containing large congested centers of 
population—an industrial state comparable 
with New York and Pennsylvania. (Massa-_ 
chusetts 2.88, New York 4.77, Pennsylvania 
5.7.) This is very suggestive when it is con- 
sidered that in Massachusetts during the last 
twelve years there have been only thirteen 
executions. 

In the Central Division, Wisconsin, Minne- 
sota and Michigan, abolition states have 
rates for the period of 2.2, 3.4 and 4.0 respec- 
tively, while those of Indiana, Ohio and 
Illinois (the latter for four years only) are 5.4, 
7.1 and 7.8 respectively. 

These statistics do not necessarily prove 
that a lower homicide rate prevails in the 
abolition states because of the absence of the 
death penalty. They do, however, furnish 
further corroboration of the fact that the 
number of homicides in a geographical area is 
caused to vary by conditions other than the 


HOMICIDE RATES IN CITIES 71 


existence or non-existence of the death pen- 
alty; that the death penalty has little effect, 
if indeed it has any at all, on the homicide 
rate. 


Homicide Rates in Cities 


In an article in the Spectator of June 14, 
1923, Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman presents a 
table showing the number of homicides and 
the homicide rates in seventy-four cities in 
the United States for the year 1922. There 
are included the following six cities in states 
where capital punishment is now abolished. 
In fact there are no cities in the present aboli- 
tion states having a population over 100,000, 
except Kansas City, that are not included 





CITIES POPULATION HOMICIDES RATE 

SoPATI WA DICIG. Co vis «5 2 144,084 I 0.7 
Milwaukee............. 478,615 14 2.9 
PROVBIOTICG a eis a sn ern 241,267 8 3.3 
PAOCHOOUS be kas es 401,095 22 5S 
EL RAE iy ea a 239,933 16 6:3 
REN ts ye A SS sg: 0's, 4» 1,127,046 95 8.4 
Totals above six Cities... 2,632,040 156 5.9 
Totals 68 other cities with 

REICH TCI soy ss sid ste 25,047,398 2,159 8.6 
Total for all 74 cities. ... 27,679,438 2,315 8.4 


There were six cities throughout the country 
having no reported homicides for the year. 


72. MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


Four of these were in Massachusetts, one in 
Connecticut and one in Pennsylvania. Grand 
Rapids, Milwaukee and Providence, three 
abolition cities, stood respectively seventh, 
nineteenth and twenty-third. In comparison 
with other cities of their own size those in 
the abolition states more than held their own 
in relative position. 


Method of Homicides 
Use of Firearms 


Table XV taken from the same article by 
Dr. Hoffman shows the homicide rates by 
method for the Registration Area for the years 
1910 to 1921. In commenting on this table 
Dr. Hoffman says: 


‘“The outstanding facts of America’s murder record 
are: first, the excessive proportion of criminals who 
go entirely unpunished or who fail to receive a punish- 
ment proportionate to the seriousness of their offenses; 
second, the large majority of murders committed by 
shooting as the result of the ease with which revolvers 
and ammunition can be secured even where the law 
prohibits their sale. Individually considered, our 
murder cases furnish abundant proof that this facility 
of securing the means of murder is often the immediate 
cause. That matters in this respect are growing worse 
is made evident by a return kindly furnished me by 
the Director of Vital Statistics of the Census, showing 


FOREIGN HOMICIDE STATISTICS 73 


the homicide rate for the Registration Area (about 
85% of the total population) for each of the years 
1910-1921 by method. This table conclusively proves 
that the murder problem in the United States is essen- 
tially a problem of the wrongful use of firearms, the 
sale and possession of which require to be made more 
effectively a matter of control and punishment on 
the part of the authorities. While a beginning has 
been made in this direction in a few states there is 
probably no alternative than congressional action, 
if a way can be found by which the interstate traffic 
in revolvers at least can be made subject to federal 
regulation and control.” 


Foreign Homicide Statistics 


Statistics that I have been able to obtain 
from foreign countries bear out the assertion 
that in the United States an abnormally high 
homicide rate prevails. 

Through the courtesy of Doctor Hoffman and 
through correspondence with our American 
Consuls, I have secured homicide rate statistics 
from a dozen or more foreign countries. These 
statistics have been tabulated (Tables XX to 
XXVII) and they reveal to a striking degree 
the very high homicide rates which prevail in 
our own country as compared with other 
nations. ‘There are, of course, other factors 
which enter into this excessively high rate 
of ours. The United States is a melting 


74. MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


pot for alien races; other countries have 
no such problems of assimilation as those 
with which we must contend. The older 
nations in Europe have laws, customs and 
institutions that have obtained through 
centuries, backed by traditions reaching far 
into the past. These instill into the minds of 
the peoples a veneration for law, a respect for 
custom, utterly lacking in our shifting popu- 
lation. It is true there may be some variation 
in the methods adopted in computing the 
homicide rates in the various countries. 
Different classifications may be used. But 
allowing for these factors, there remains a very 
marked differentiation between our rates and 
those abroad from which we cannot fail to 
draw the deduction that either our form of 
punishment or our method of application, 
or perhaps both, are defective. 

There has been presented a comparison of 
rates in the United States with those of foreign 
countries which retain, as well as those which 
have abolished, capital punishment, because 
it is important to emphasize the fact that our 
own homicide rates are abnormally high, that 
nowhere else do we find similar conditions, no- 
where else do statistics give indication of so 
much homicidal crime. What a tremendous 


ITALY 75 


contrast exists between the rates in the United 
states and those in other English speaking 
countries! We far outstrip England, Scot- 
land and Canada. Our normal rate approach- 
es even the abnormal condition in Ireland in 
1920 when the rate rose to 9.5, about nine 
times its ordinary figure, due to riots and in- 
ternal disturbances. (Tables XX and XXI.) 


Italy 


A comparison of rates among the foreign 
nations which have abolished the death penal- 
ty and those which retain it shows no tendency 
toward higher rates in the abolition group, 
except possibly in the case of Italy and even 
that country is far below ours. In Italy since 
1910 the homicide rate has not gone above 
4.04 per 100,000 population. (Table XXIV). 
In 1918 it was 2.75 and in 1922 3.48. ‘This is 
about on a par with Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island and Minnesota and is far lower than 
the general rate in the United States. Taken 
in connection with the very large proportion 
of Italian nativity among those sentenced to 
death in our own state, it seems to indicate 
that even the impulsive Latin is more deterred 
by life imprisonment than by the threat of 
death. The Italian rates are also worth study- 


76 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


ing as indicating no tendency for homicidal 
crime in that country to increase, and further, 
as showing a general decrease in the decade 
from I910 to 1920 as compared with the 
previous decade and with the period prior to 
1890 when capital punishment existed. Cer- 
tainly the Italians have experienced no diffi- 
culty in controlling murder without the death 
penalty. The Ministry of Justice in a letter 
transmitting these statistics, states that no 
increase in homicidal crime has been noticed 
since capital punishment was abolished. 


Switzerland 


From Switzerland I have secured and in- 
cluded in Table XXV complete data for 
forty years. These statistics present very 
interesting contrasts with our own figures. A 
careful study of this table is worth while. It 
affords in the first place a comparison of con- 
ditions over a period of forty years in locantons 
which retain capital punishment with those 
in 15 cantons where it is abolished. Analysis 
of the figures fails to disclose any less homi- 
cidal crime in those cantons which retain the 
death penalty than in those where it has been 
abolished. In the second place, it furnishes 
material for serious thought when it is realized 


SWITZERLAND a 


that the lowest rates in our own states are 
from eight to ten times higher than the rates 
in the Swiss cantons. The rates in the Swiss 
tables cover ten year periods, those in the 
United States are annual. The lowest rates 
in our country are for Maine and New Hamp- 
shire, each of which states for single years 
have been as low as 0.9 and which for ten 
years averaged annually 1.8 and 1.9 respec- 
tively. The highest average annual rate in the 
Swiss table is for the canton of Nidwalden, 
which for forty years averaged annually 0.29. 
The annual average for the whole Swiss Re- 
public during the forty years was 0.25. In 
the 10 cantons having capital punishment 
there were six executions during the entire 
period. 


Holland and Norway 


The rates in Holland and Norway are 
equally low in comparison with American 
rates. Holland for 1911-1918 averaged 0.31, 
Norway for 1910-1919 averaged 0.82. In 
the corresponding period, 1911-1921, in the 
registration area of the United States, the 
average rate was 7.2. (Tables XXII and 
XXVI). 


78 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
Cities 

Table XXVII presents an interesting com- 
parison of rates in foreign cities as contrasted 
with the combined rates for all cities in the 
registration area of the United States. I also 
have statistics for Brazil where for the five 
years from 1917 to 1921, the City of Rio de 
Janeiro had a homicide rate of 5.37. Com- 
parative rates for the same period for five of 
our largest cities in capital punishment states 
were, New York, 5.3; Philadelphia, 6.5; 
Chicago, 10.8; Cleveland, 12.3; St. Louis, 16.9. 
In tables XX VI and XXVII there is presented 
a tabulation from these statistics of the aver- 
age homicide rate for a period of years. Two 
facts again stand out with prominence. First, 
the great difference between the rates in the 
United States and those in all other countries. 
second, except for Italy, where the rate is 
somewhat higher, the abolition nations have 
as low rates as those which prevail where 
capital punishment is retained. 


Conclusion 


From the data which I have collected, from 
a study of actual conditions over a period of 
many years in the school of experience, I have 
come to this very definite conclusion. There 


CONCLUSION 709 


has been in the past and there is to a greater 
degree today a general trend toward a lessen- 
ing in the severity of punishment. At times 
backward steps may be taken, ground may be 
lost, but the tendency is forward, so that the 
logical goal must be the complete elimination 
of the death penalty from our system of punish- 
ment. |The death penalty rests upon wrong 
_ basic principles. It conforms to none of our 
ideas of modern criminology. It is impossible 
of scientific application. As a punishment it 


generations in a great majority of our states. 
Yet we have a homicide rate today—and 
always have had—to which in comparison with 
other nations we cannot point with pride. 
In those states where capital punishment has 
been abolished the record is better than where 
it exists. There have been greater increases 
in homicidal crimes occurring in states which 
have always retained the death penalty than 
have ever occurred in states where it has been 
abolished. It is no new experiment; it has 
stood the test of years. No claim is made 
that it will prove a panacea that will effect the 
cure of homicidal crime, but I do believe that 


80 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 


life imprisonment with a long unavoidable 
minimum provides a form of punishment that 
is more certain of application than the death 
penalty can ever be made, that is more scien- 
tific in application because with its long but 
variable minimum it presents a possibility for 
individualization and differentiation of treat- 
ment; that by reason of these qualities its 
universal adoption will provide a more effec- 
tive deterrent. 


Appendix A 


TABLES AND CHARTS 


81 


82 ; APPENDIX A 


TABLE I.—SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF CAPITAL 
IN THE VARIOUS STATES 





New En gland Middle Atlantic 
Division Division 


States where Capital ||NEw HAmMpPsHIRE| New Jersey (2) 
Punishment is retained 
conditionally, the court 
or jury having power to 
choose between life im- 
prisonment and _ the 


death penalty. 

States where Capital || VERMONT NEW YORK 
Punishment is retained || MASSACHUSETTS | PENNSYLVANIA 
absolutely. CONNECTICUT 


States where Capital |; MAINE 
Punishment has been |}RHODE ISLAND 
abolished. 





Note: Mr. Bye in his essay gives a tabulation of this informa- 
tion according to the status at that date (1918). Twelve states 
had abolished capital punishment, twelve retained the death 
penalty absolutely and twenty-four retained the death penalty 
conditionally, permitting the court or jury to choose between 
it and life imprisonment. 


TABLES AND CHARTS 83 


PUNISHMENT AND THE CHANGES WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE 
SINCE THE YEAR 1918 


Pacific 
North Central South Atlantic | South Central and Mountain 
Division Division Division Division 


Delaware (2) |KENTUCKY MONTANA 
MARYLAND TENNESSEE IDAHO 
VIRGINIA ALABAMA WYOMING 
WEST VIRGINIA |MISSISSIPPI COLORADO 
SouTH CAROLINA|LOUISIANA Arizona (1) 
(1) |Georgia (2) |Arkansas (2) |UTAH 
OKLAHOMA NEVADA 
TEXAS Washington (1) 
Oregon I 
CALIFORNIA 


FLORIDA New Mexico 
NorRTHCAROLINA 





Those states in which changes have occurred since 1918 are printed 
in italics. ‘ 
(1) indicates states which formerly were without capital punish- 
ment. 
(2) indicates states which formerly retained the death penalty 
absolutely. 


84. | APPENDIX A 


TABLE I (Continued) 


SUMMARY 
1923 
States where capital punishment is retained absolutely 8 
States where capital punishment is abolished.......... 8 
States where capital punishment is retained condition- 
ally, the court or jury being permitted to choose 
between life imprisonment and the death penalty.... 32 


1918 
States where capital punishment was retained absolutely. 12 
States where capital punishment was abolished........ 12 


States where capital punishment was retained condition- 
ally, the court or jury being permitted to choose be- 
tween life imprisonment and the death penalty...... 24 





TABLES AND CHARTS 85 


TABLE II 


Showing the number of prisoners sentenced to death in each state 
during the years 1912 to I919, inclusive, the number of those 
sentenced who were subsequently executed or who died, the percentage 
of executions and deaths in relation to death sentences, and where 
available, the average homicide rate for each state for the period. 





























e2 | sss | 88 3 
S28 eT eee a Me Re el Wt 
gees Q) | 223 1883). 3 
BS Ps 3.2 SPs RR ‘= 
cued 86 jes See joes] § 
STATES ads ZS [ogl | Sea] 3s 
a ee ee 3 
ee (Sega ess] SS 
slolsielels/elal SSS] 8885] 8.8] $a 
2828s seyqsQlSsSSS/SSo] <s 
BLAINE seid ssa oa o'e ws Abolition 1.80 
New HAMPSHIRE...| 0} 0} Of Of If oO} I] o 2 2 100% | 1.97 
VERMONT.........- I] Oo} oO] r] Of o} of x 3 2 66% | 1.97 
MASSACHUSETTS....| 5} I] 2) I] 21 I} O] o| 12 9 75% | 2.98 
RHODE ISLAND..... Abolition 3.3 
CONNECTICUT...... 2] 4) 1] 5| 2) 6] 4] 2}| 26 23 88% | 3.76 
IEW LORE sls cahe-w s. 26|11}21|22|11/16/11]27| 145 89 61% | 4.63 
NEw JERSEY.......| 7| 9] 8} 5] 4] 5} 5] 2] 45 33 13% | 4.52 
PENNSYLVANIA.....| ©} O] 7/10} 7/12/21/20] 77 75 97% | 5.66 
DELAWARE........ 0} oO} o} I] 1] 3] o} z 6 6 100% | 7.7 Note G 
MARYLAND ........ B B B 5.78 
VIRGOUA ee. 2s 55 16]13]12|11|10] 6] 4] 6| 78 64 82% |10.05 E 
WEST VIRGINIA....| ©} 4] 2] 3] 2] 1) 3] 2] 17 12 10% Note A 
SoutH CAROLINA...| 9/10] 4/13} 8] 4) 7] 6] 61 44 72% |12.2 NoteF 
GRORGIA casceness- B B B Note A 
VTIEO rates dics APs s/o 4} 3] 2} 2] r} 3/11) 8 34 18 53% 7.0 
INDIANA conse cosees Ij 2] I] 2] o} o} ©} 4] 10 4 40% | 5.31 
ILLINOIS ca cccoceee- B B B 7.5 Note D 
-|MICHIGAN......... Abolition 3.7 
WISCONSIN......-- Abolition 2.33 
MISSOURI .......-. te B B B 9.7 
KANSAS 2. -eeseeees Abolition 6.7H 
IOWA 2c cscvceee peat One | bP Wi oO! o 0 fe) ° Note A 
NEBRASKA........-.]| O} O} I' 1} I! oO} 2] o 5 2 40% | Note A 
MINNESOTA........ Abolition 3.29 
NortH DAKOTA.... Abolition Note A 


SouTtH DAKOTA.... Abolition Note A 





86 APPENDIX A 


TABLE II (Continued) 


Sen- 
g 
or 


STATES 


NUMBER OF 
PRISONERS 
SENTENCED 
EacuH YEAR 
Percentageof Executions 
and Deaths in relation 


to Death Sentences 
Average Homicide Rate 


Number 
tenced to Death Durin 
for Period 


Period 


tenced who were Subse- 
quently Executed 


Number of those Sen- 
who Died 


I916 
Toial 


+14 
ae 
ALA 
mie 


WwW 
Nv 


KENTUCKY ic ss'ss 8 o> 
BOUWISIANA 4 sc.asc'<.6 a8 


PS 
an 


ARIZONA... 
WYOMING.... 











WASHINGTON......| I} 11Note K 2 50% | 6.91 
OCRUGCON fc 55 64a 8] 3] 1;Note L 13 54% | 4.5 D 
CALIFORNIA......--| 7| 5} 6 is 3| 2/13} 9] 56 4I 73% |11.6 
NOTES 
A—No homicide rate statistics. F—Rates are for 1916-1919. 
B—Executions held in counties, no G— * gee ede) 
state-wide figures. H— ‘ “*  * IOT4-I9IO. 
C—Executions after 1918 held in K—Capital punishment abolished in 
counties. 1913. 
D—Rates are for 1918-19109. L—Capital punishment abolished in 
E— 5% «2 «2 I9T3~I9IO- 1914. 


TABLES AND CHARTS 87 


TABLE III 


Comparison of Death Sentences, Executions and Homicide Rates— 
New York and Massachusetts, 1912 to 1921, inclusive. 


MASSACHUSETTS NEW YORK 


peo Execu- 


10nS 
tences d 


WD DD VOWO HO 


COM CWO KOH HO 
PPALHAHAHPAAUUH 
CAHDOWNA AOD 


1921 


Totals 


| 


vooal 
oil ea ey SX 


5 
I 
a 
I 
o 4 
I 
oO 
10) 
I 
O 
13 


- 
ron) 





Notes: * Three are still in death house awaiting execution at the 
time this table is under preparation. 
In connection with this table it should be noted that New York has a 
population approximately 2.7 times that of Massachusetts. 


88 } APPENDIX A 


TABLE IV 


Showing the number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in 
each state during the years 1912 to 1919, inclusive: the status of these 
prisoners on January Ist, 1923, including the number who have been 
released and the number in prison on that date; the percentage of the total 
number sentenced who have been released by commutation, pardon or 
otherwise than by death or insanity; in each period where available, 
the average homicide rate for the period. 





ON JANUARY IST, 
1923, THE STATUS 


NUMBER OF PRISON- 
ERS SENTENCED TO 











LirE IMPRISONMENT OF THESE PRISONERS | 3 3 
AS = s~. 
Iw 3 
2 | £8 es is 
STATES : 8 E = ~~ : 
<|2381 2 les da 
~a}[ao}] & S33 pt: 
“A S| ss] = | se] ss 
Saisiwiecigiei Ste |S [Sel & Sasi 
HAasqaaqaeQya;Alales| a jase| <8 
MAING . isnve vse 3| 5} xr] 7] 4] 2] zr] 3] 26) 2 I 5 18 | 19% | 1.80 
NEw HAMPSHIRE.| 0} 3] 0} 4] 0} I] 0} 1] 9| oO | Oo oO 91 0% | 1.07 
VERMONT.......} 0] O| 3] I] 2] 2] of 2} 9} of Oo o 9| 0% | 1.07 
MASSACHUSETTS | 9} 6/1r4/10/12/14|10| 7| 82} 6] 13 5 58 | 6% | 2.08 
RHODE ISLAND...| 2} 0] o| 2} 0} ZT] of 2) 7} o| Oo I 6 | 14% | 3.3 
CONNECTICUT....}| 2] 7] 5] 2} 7] 8] 9/13) 53] 7 I 2 43 | 4% | 3.76 
NEw YoRK...... 33|32|30/37|33|42|22/53/282) ro | 32 39 192 | 14% | 4.63 
NEW JERSEY....| 0] O} Oo} O| 2/15|/14/I0} 41) 1 7 I 32 | 234% | 4.52 
PENNSYLVANIA...| 8] 5/10] 6} 0} 4] 4/ 5] 42] 4 3 7 28 | 16% | 5.66 
DELAWARE...... 2] 2| 2] I] 3] 4] rz] 6] 21] 4 I I 15 5% 17.7 F 
MARYLAND...... 3] 3] 9] 5] 7] 4/rojz9] 60] 8 | 3 3 46} 5% | 5.78 
VIRGINIA ........ 0] O} 7} 7/12] 4] 9/23} 62] x 4 4 53 6% |10.95 C 
WEsT VIRGINIA. ./16] 8/13)/15|14/25/18]11|120] B | B B 76 B | NoteA 
So. CAROLINA... .|17/13/12|15|I2|10]/12}/14/105] 11 2 38 54 | 36% |12.2 E 
INDIANA........ 27/30|18}21/28/27/18/23/192] 16 | 14 38 124 | 19% | 5.31 
RULINOIN 6 os soc Os 23|23/32/28/33|30|28/39/236] 15 | 18 40 163 | 17% | 725 D 
MICHIGAN.......] 9] 5/11] 9] 9} Olr2|/10] 74] 6 | 12 | 25 31 | 33% | 3-7 
WISCONSIN...... 11] 3} 6] 5] 6] 6] 4jro] 51] 5 9 II 26 | 21% | 2.33 
MISSOURI......./20/27}23/30|22|25|12/22/181] 15 | 5 | 54 | 107 | 20% | 9.7 
TOAMEAR J oka o's « 8] 6] 8] olr7] ofr1] 8] 76) 8 ° 22 46 | 290% | 6.7G 
f° Bybee Ae 10/16|13] O}12|/12] 6]19] 97] 3 4 29 61 | 20% | Note A 





TABLES AND CHARTS 89 


TABLE IV—(Continued) 


NUMBER OF PRISON- ON JANUARY IST, 
ERS SENTENCED TO 1923, THE STATUS 


Lire IMPRISONMENT OF annee PRISONERS 
AS 


or 


STATES 


Discharged, 


Percentage of Total Number 


Commuted, 


Released 
Average Homicide Rate for 


Declared Insane 
Released by Commuta- 
tion or Otherwise 

Still in Prison 

the Period 


Oo 
On 


NEBRASKA ...... 
MINNESOTA..... 
No. DAKOTA.... 
So. DAKOTA 
KENTUCKY. 


WH 
N 


pH 
NWO HH HW WH OO HH 


es Oe png as eee ee 
Me -Pry ae e  e  e  ee 
AHWWOhHNOWOHKHF 


a ntpondsfPhOwHununwt ounnd 
ms 


dH hha HNO LE DON H 
WH 


NEw MEeExIco.... 





2 
fo) 
I 
5 
2 


La 
Lal 


3/II} 7|10 
+ -136/27|35138141149| 29/38/2903] 2 


PHPHAHODONAHARWHOUN SH 


>~RANKHONKHWWH 





NOTES 
A—No homicide rate statistics. E—Rate for years 1916-1919. 
B—Records are incomplete. Dog faerie RUA CATAL AM IQIQ. 
C—Rate for years 1913-1919 G— * * “ 1914-1919. 


D— * * *  tI918-I9I9. 


go iy APPENDIX A 


TABLE V 


Showing for two periods of four years each (1912-1915 and I916- 
1919) the number of homicides in each period, the number of persons 
sentenced to death, of those sentenced the number who were subse- 
quently executed, the number of death sentences per 100 homicides, 
the number of executions per 100 homicides and the homicide rate. 












3 » 
3 | g Ss s 9 
S mat ie >a 5 m 
S S$ Ss “ 3.8 
ty S 23 8 $ “3 
3 | 3 S$ |] ss 18 33 
STATES Periop | SS | & Sf 18s |. ee 
Lt} pa] O-x S n A, 
om xy w7 = o€ =) 
3 v0 s ad S Ss =O 
2s es £'3 eS) z's 28 
ae Es a ms s& = = 
zs Ran a2 ss a) ss 
za za OR Qn my Ms 
MASSE eae I9I2-IQI5 7I 2.35 
I9I6-I919] 38 we a a 1.25 
NEw HAMPSHIRE .|1912-I915 44 fe) o o fe) 2.5 
IQI6-I9I9 25 2 2 8.0 8.0 1.4 
VERMONT........ IQI2-I9I5 27 2 2 7.4 TA I.90 
IQI6-I9IO 29 I v9) 3-44 ° 2.05 
MASSACHUSETTS..|I9I2~1915| 451 9 7 1.99 1.55 3.3 
IQIG-I919] 4I7 3 2 0.74 0.48 2.8 
RHODE ISLAND.../I9I2-I9I5 73 3.3 
IG“torD 78 ABOLITION ot 
CONNECTICUT..../IQI2-I915| 171 I2 Ir 7.01 6.43 2s 
IQI6-IQ9IO| 212 14 12 6.6 5.66 4.0 
New YorK......{I912-I915] 1887 80 53 4.23 2.80 4.9 
I9I6-I9IQ|] 1744 65 36 is. 72 2.06 4.3 
NEw JERSEY.....|/I912-1915| 466 29 18 6.22 3.86 4.2 
IQ9I6-1919] 584 16 13 2.74 2.32 4.8 
PENNSYLVANIA .../I9I2-I915] 1583 17 16 1.07 I.0I 4.9 
IQI6O—-IQI9| 2170 60 se 2.76 2.62 6.4 
DELAWARE......|/I9I2-I9I5 NOTE 2 
IQ9I6-I9I9 17 I I 5.88 5.88 w.7 
MARYLAND....../I912-I9I5| 271 NOTE I Ea 
IQIG—-I9IO}] 351 6.2 
VirGInia (Note 3)/1912-1915] 767 36 31 4.69 4.04 11.8 


IQI6-I9IO} 924 26 21 2.81 2.27 10.3 





TABLES AND CHARTS 91 


TABLE V (Continued) 


per 


Rate 


STATES PERIOD 


Death Sentences per 
100 Homicides 
100,000 Population 


Executions per r00 


Of those Sentenced, the 
Homicides 


Number Sentenced to 
Number Executed 


im] 
i=) 
‘= 
s 
Qy 
00 
= 
‘. 
fae 
= 
Q 


Homicide 








IQI2-I9I5 
IQI6-IQIO 
IOI2-I915 ABOLITION 
I9I6-I9I9 
I9I2-I9I5 ABOLITION 
I9I6-I9I9 
MINNESOTA....../IQI2—I9QI5 ABOLITION 3.4 
IQI6—I9I9 3:1 
KANSAS... IQI2-1915 NOTE 4 6.5 
IQI6-IQIO ABOLITION 6.8 
IQI2-IOI5 5 0.92 5.8 
I9I6-I9I9 13 I.26 8.2 
IQI2-I915 4 0.97 5.5 
I9I6-I9I9 Oo 0.68 5.1 
MISSOURI........|IQ9I2-I9I5 9.07 
IQI6—I9I9 NOTE I 0.52 
WASHINGTON.....|I9I2-1915] 400 8.1 
I9I6—I919 297 ABOLITION 5.7 
MONTANA.......|IQI2-I9I5] 214 12.1 
IQI6—-I9I9] 279 NOTE I 13.7 
REAM 5 ciate a e-<\p! aie IQI2-I915}| 139 3 I 2.15 0.71 8.6 
IQI6-I9I9 85 5 2 5.88 2.35 4.9 
CALIFORNIA......|I9I2-I915| 1400 29 20 2.07 1.43 12.6 
IQI6-I919] 1354 27 19 I.99 1.40 10.6 
NOTES 


The number of homicides in the first period are taken from the table in Mr. 
Bye’s essay, in the second period from the report of the U. S. Census Bureau. 
Homicides rates are taken from tables of the U. S. Census Bureau. The number 
of sentences and of executions are taken from reports of the wardens of the various 
state prisons. The computations are made from these data. 

1) Executions are held in counties—no state-wide figures. 
2) Figures are available for 1919 only. 

3) Figures in first period are for 1913, 1914 and I9gI5. 

4) Figures in first_period are for 1914 and I9gI5. 


92 APPENDIX A 


TABLE VI 


From the data in the foregoing table (V) there has been 
computed for the whole period of eight years the proportionate 
number who committed homicide to each person sentenced to 
death and to each person executed. The states are arranged in 
order of the homicide rates. It is to be noted that there is no 
appreciable relation between the homicide rate and the number 
of sentences or the number of executions in proportion to homi- © 
cides. 





Number of Number of 
Homicides in | Homicides in 
Proportion to | Proportion to |Homuicide 


STATES Each Person Each Person Rate 

Sentenced Executed 

to Death 
NEw HAMPSHIRE 35 35 1.97 
VERMONT 19 28 1.97 
MASSACHUSETTS 72 96 2.98 
CONNECTICUT 14 17 3.76 
NEW JERSEY 23 34 4.52 
NEW YORK 25 40 4.63 
INDIANA 120 300 5.31 
PENNSYLVANIA 49 5I 5.66 
UTAH 28 75 6.76 
OHIO 88 166 7.0 
DELAWARE (I year) 17 17 YB d 
VIRGINIA 27 32 10.95 
KENTUCKY 67 97 11.33 


CALIFORNIA 49 70 11.6 





TABLES AND CHARTS 93 


TABLE VII 


Showing statistics as to all prisoners sentenced to death in 
the State of New York from December, 1889, to October, 1923, 
with particular reference to Nativity, Age and the Subsequent 
Disposition. 


I. NATIVITY 


RIPE CLACGS SUA Nene hole wiht om aval WW! catia teak 216 
DRY oee Cu ee big RON Re tie: wie WmbaKelavebn y) dol pki Sia ie 127 
ecg Lays Sees op ET RANA Fee AERA BE RCC TERE 25 
PR NISRIA Taree re CRA tah IN Leas ae ste''e Aie Rk BALE 15 
AISI eh EMD ay hei bis pale te en ki 19 
Divided among 24 nationalities................. 56 

DOPE TUMDEM TECOLVE” » Loci :am W/ice;alarsto s ela paierciels 458 

II. AGE 

PARR TOCM CED LYPOTIE YS, Wi silhass Gh. Mavis nine eke bene a ® & 37 
Twenty-one to twenty-five.,.............0.008. 123 
thetic! 3 yoren rs Na Lal 8, MO ea ie Pe ae TR be Ro 93 
ELRIUVSONO tO CHITCVALIVE, ones sibs kc We at bares aak Sikes 70 
SEE AR Ma) ROEUG eh c's Wieighea tears irik wee dee cate the 54 
PSTD LOTLY~LIVE so, 0 sis ois inte. aietinre hs pebe late 24 
Re MVE OC ay Gi Una imide Oe aie ROR s 16 
COL ESTA 0 A ERE EN MR SE CE 14 
TERM eV Rom als ad, Stel ahat stave’ A gin ANS Seca | 
MMAMMEVIR. RDI AT CONEY ttacse tis La Bh yar ata a ehare wrroet 20 

otal number recetved si. !4 sca ec bieladieres #0 458 


III. SwuBsEQUENT DISPOSITION 


PURERTICEME AONE So all dal Ti Rh ce A itera’ s ciate Ate 298 
(TN ARN Ct Pa: ROME ANE TS Pr aU SCA LR AAPL RUN ROEAGe BHACANE he 4 
pE REN DRORAE e Siad ARE UN AO RE RY tr 13 
eRre DOU, ALICNOTIWHER cin a baad Woe eae ale goss 2 
Commuted to life, pardoned, etc................ 70 
Judgment reversed and found not guilty......... 10 
udgment reversed; received prison term......... 34 
udgment reversed; awaiting disposition......... II 
n prison awaiting execution (October, 1923)..... 16 


UOtAL TUM DEF PECSIVE a bievs «dca alwidida ale nh e on 458 


APPENDIX A 


£z61 
‘I ‘uef uo wuosud 
UI [[1¥S 910M OLOTLL 


QUSUT porepseq 


Pep pey sey |se sea 

‘sgt --fuef ao 
snjeqs 94} Iv0A 
qowo poousj}uas 
Jequmu 943 JO 


pesioAsr Juouspn[ 


podeosq 


"999 
‘uopied ‘uoneynm 
-uioo Aq _ pasvool 
useq ~=prey soy 


.90Ua}UeS Jopun 
ie9h YOes poArooos Joquinu [eyoy 


Sere 1070.7 |OIOI/ZIGI|LIGI/OIGI|SIGI/VIGI|EIGI |Z161 





‘€z61 ‘4st Arenuef jo se snjze}s Moy} Surmoys 
‘QAISNpOUL ‘6161 0} ZI61 sired dy} SUIINP YUoWUOSTICUIT oft] 03 YYvop WIOIJ poyNuUIIOD JO 
‘aFIT 0} sIvoA AZIM} 07 PIOUNJUIS YIOX MON JO 9}e}G 9Y} Ut SIOUOSIId [[e Jo AreuruINg 


IIIA WIdVL 


TABLES AND CHARTS 95 


TABLE IX 


Showing by states, arranged in order of homicide rates, for the 
eight years, 1912 to 1919, inclusive, the number of prisoners sentenced 
to death, the percentage of those sentenced who failed to be executed, 
the number sentenced to life imprisonment, and the percentage of those 
sentenced who were commuted or released prior to January Ist, 1923. 


DEATH SENTENCES | LIFE SENTENCES 


Percentage Number Percenta 

STATES Homicide Spiselopee Failed . sirens pe niket x 

Rate to Death to be Imprison- Commuted 

Executed ty etc. 

MAINE... 2) .. 1.80 Abolition 26 19% 
NEW HAMPSHIRE|_ 1.97 2 0% 9 0% 
VERMONT...) 2:97 4 43% 9 0% 
WISCONSIN..... 2.33 Abolition 51 21% 
MASSACHUSETTS | 2.98 i wae BRE 47) 82 6% 
MINNESOTA..... 3.29 Abolition 92 14% 
RHODE ISLAND..| 3.3 Abolition 7 14% 
MICHIGAN...... 3.70 Abolition 74. 33% 
CONNECTICUT...| 3.76 26 12% 53 4% 

OREGON (6)..... 4.45 3 46% 61 44% | 

NEW JERSEY....| 4.52 45 27% 4I 244% 

NEw YoRE..... 4.63 145 39% 282 14% 
PNDIANAG 6 od. 5.31 10 60% 192 19% 
PENNSYLVANIA..| 5.66 a7 3% 42 16% 
MARYLAND..... 5.78 (Note 1) 60 5% 
KANSAS i405), 2% 6.7 Abolition 76 29% 
TITAS ke Se 43 6.76 Bix bi, 63% 18 83% 
WASHINGTON....{ 6.91 (Note 2) 49 14% 

) Ste Pe eee 7.0 RAba be ae, Note 7 
PLLENOT SL). bn 7.5 (3) Note I 236 17% 
DELAWARE..... Sepia) 6 0% 21 5% 
VIRGINIA....... 10.9 78 18% 62 6% 
KENTUCKY..... 113 32 31% 118 34% 
CALIFORNIA.....| I1.6 56 27% 293 9% 
So. CAROLINA...| 12.2 (5) 61 28% 105 36% 


MONTANA...... 12.9 Note Ir | 28 50% 


96 APPENDIX A 


TABLE IX (Continued) 


DEATH SENTENCES | LIFE SENTENCES 


STATES  |Homicide| Number \P ercentage 
Kate Sensenced Failed 


to be 
to Death E 


hahaned Imprison- 


ment 


States where homicide rates are not available. — 
Ol 97 29% 

Abolition 7 14% 

Abolition 17 35% 

46 35% 350 33% 

14 71% 59 42% 

9 56% 37 40% 

17 0% 

60% 20 55% 

an 60% 53 13% 
NEw MEXxIco... 7% 10 10% 





NOTES 


(1) Executions are held in counties—no state-wide figures. 
(2) There were two sentences and one execution prior to abolition 


in 1913. 
(3) Homicide rates for 1918-1919. 
(4) é “é 4é I9IQ. 
(5) aS “*  ** 1916 to 1919 inclusive. 
(6) ‘s “« "1918-1919; sentences for I9I2, 1913, 1914, 


prior to abolition in 1914. 
(7) No data for life sentences. 


TABLES AND CHARTS 97 


TABLE X 
COMPARISON OF HOMICIDE Rates, NortH ATLANTIC DIVISION 


Combined average rates per 100,000 of population for Maine 
and Rhode Island, abolition states, compared with New Hamp- 
shire and Connecticut, two states which retain capital punish- 
ment and which are similar in general character and geographical 
location. The third column gives the combined average rate for 
all seven capital punishment states in this division, Vermont, 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New 
Jersey and Pennsylvania. 


Average Rate, | Average Rate, | Average Rate 
Year Maine and | Connecticut and| for Seven Cap. 
Rhode Island | New Hampshire| Pun. States 


1906 2.0 1.9 2.6 
1907 a0 17 3.2 
1908 2.6 2.1 3.3 
1909 2.0 2.4 3.3 
I9IO 2.9 1.6 3.1 
I9QII 3.0 2.6 3.9 
1912 2.4 2.5 3.2 
1913 3-1 3-5 3-9 
1914 2.8 3.2 3.6 
1915 2.7 2.9 3.5 
1916 2.5 2.1 3.5 
I9I7 2.3 3:3 4.0 
1918 1.8 2.3 3.4 
1919 2.4 3.0 az 
1920 1.6 2.8 3.5 
1921 2.6 2.6 a7 





Homicide rates in this and following tables are computed from a 
table showing death rate from homicides per 100,000 population 
in the Registration Area furnished by United States Census 
Bureau. 


TABLE XI 
COMPARISON OF HOMICIDE RATES, NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION 


Combined average rates per 100,000 of population for Michigan 
and Minnesota, abolition states, compared with Ohio and In- 


98 - APPENDIX A 


diana, two states which retain capital punishment and which are 
similar in general character and geographical location. 


Average Rate for Average Rate for 
Minnesota and Ohio and 
Michigan Indiana 


PAO VYA HHH NOD 
AWnoumnund oman oO 
NANDA AN ADNAN BS 
= OOWORUHENH OM 





TABLE XII 
COMPARISON OF HOMICIDE RATES, WESTERN DIVISION 


The homicide rates fer 100,000 of population for Washington, 
where capital punishment was abolished from 1913 to 1919, 
compared with the combined average rates for Montana, Col- 
orado, Utah and California, states which retain capital punish- 
ment. 


Average Rate in Four 
Rate in Washington Capital Pun. States 


7.2 
6.5 
0.0 
8.9 
5-5 
5-5 
4.2 
7:5 
5.1 
5-9 





TABLES AND CHARTS 99 


4 


TABLE XIII 


Homicide rates per 100,000 of population in four states where 
capital punishment has been abolished since 1910, and in three 
of which (Washington, Missouri and Oregon) it was later restored. 
The years in which capital punishment was abolished are shown 
in heavy faced type. 





WASHINGTON MINNESOTA 
Year Rate Year Rate 
IQII 7.5 1910 3 
I9I2 he IQII 3-9 
1913 6.5 1912 2.8 
1914 10.0 1913 3.0 
IQI5 8.9 IQI4 45 
1916 5.5 IQI5 3-4 
1917 5.5 1916 3-3 
1918 4.2 IQI7 3-3 
I9I9 7.5 1918 2.9 
1920 5.1 IQIQ ree 
1921 5.9 1920 3-1 

1921 4.4 


MIssourI OREGON 


yy 
QR 
~~ 
® 


Year 


IQII 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
IQI7 
1918 
I9IQ 
1920 
1921 


SS 
et ee ee ee 


MONT HW OWWO CON 


- 





100 APPENDIX A 


TABLE XIV 


Showing combined average homicide rates per 100,000 popu- 
lation for five abolition states (Maine, Rhode Island, Michigan, 
Kansas, Minnesota) compared with the combined average rates 
of five capital punishment states, similar in location, and char- 
acter of population and industrial conditions (New Hampshire, 
Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri.) 


Rate in Rate in Capital 
Year Abolition Group Punishment Group 


5.60 
5-24 
5°44 
6.96 
5.48 
5.56 
5-04 


1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 


PROMKKHKWY 
BW COmM BONITO 
CONDO OK 


| 


General average 
over period 





Y 
x 
\o 


TABLE XV 


Table showing homicides by method. Rates per 100,000 of 
population in the Registration Area of the United States. (This 
table is taken from an article by Dr. F. L. Hoffman in the Spec- 
tator, June 14th, 1923). 


Total Cutting or Other 
Year Rate Firearms Piercing VUethods 
1910 5.9 3.4 0.8 1.6 
IQII 6.6 4.0 1.1 1.6 
I9I2 6.6 4.1 1.0 1.5 
1913 7.2 4.5 1.1 1.7 
1914 7.4 4.7 1.1 1.6 
1915 7.0 4.3 1.0 1.7 
1916 Wi 4.5 1.0 1.6 
I9I7 AY d 5.1 1.0 1.6 
1918 6.8 4.6 0.8 Pe 
I9I9 76 5.4 0.8 1.3 
1920 yoy 5.1 0.7 1.2 
1921 8.5 6.2 0.9 1.4 





IOI 


TABLES AND CHARTS 


eee ** FIOZR ASN 
** -eruvalAsuueg 


**** AosIo[ MON 
*** qnorjoeuU0, 
+ S}yesnyoesse yy 
"* puvisy spoqd 
reese gure 
altysdwmepy MON 
sees" guOmseA 


MHAMNTOWDANW 
NMA MNSTOO ALY 
MAHON EH ACS 
HAM TFMO MAG 
NMnHO NSO ASD 
eFTRNNMNDO Yr AD 
HAMTNHOND A 


8 
6 
L 
9 
v 
$ 
I 
(4 
£ 


HAMUO TMHO AY 
warn mM tO M™ ACO 
MHAMNTDOO AM 


9anj0j9y 


SALVLS 


uo1sIsOg 
9a24D19N 
9pt91uo 
uoutIsog 
2314019 
9p191mo 
u0141S0g 
aanjDjay 
apro1mopy 
uontsog 
3an019y 
9p191uL.0 FT 
u01tSOd 
9011019L 
ap191m0 
uortsog 
aannjay 
apt91ULo FT 
u01tS0g 
9anj0jay 
ap191moH 
u0141S0g 
aa1qnjay 
apt94moy 
uo01tsod 
9p191Mo 
u0NtSOT 
9414019 
9ps21uoH 


6161 SI6I 
IsDAIV 





‘pOliod s[OYM oY} JOAO ZuIpULyS DAT}LIOI OY} PUL SOseIOAL oY} AIT 9G} OY} JO Suu 
~[09 OM} ASP] OY, “eof Jey} UT 0}e4S 94} Jo UOTZISOd oAT}eIOI OY} So}eOIpUT Jeo Yoo UI UUINIOO ysIYy ONT, 
‘adA} poovj AAvoy ut pojulid ole poysijoqe useq sey 
yuourystund yeydeo yoryM ul esoyy, “seaX yoRs ut Sojv}s oY} JO UorTsod oAT}eTOI OY} YIM J0Y3}030} ‘oATSHpOUT 
*IZOI 0} Z161 seo 94} JOJ UOISIAIC] ONJULT}V YIION OY} Ul Soze}S OUTU OY} JO SozeI OprorUMOF] oy} SurMoys 


TAX WIGVL 


APPENDIX A 


102 





et | 





Set Se Gar Let Sek bere 8 seeeees ssroulyy] 
96 | g |ror1] g | 62] g¢ | 46] g |reor] g jeter] L jovor] L | eGo] L}e6)] L166) g | Bl] g I***** Hoss1y 
r°h 9 g°L 9 6'9 9 e*, 9 S$°g Zz £°6 9 ot 9 6's Ss g's v gs S g’s S$ “eee ee were oqo 
PS LP AGOL FL eo ee lee igo ft Pres Cb pes Set). Ter y-1ee el ene 
99] S [S42] S | 4h] € | 49] S$ |OS] S [69] S |gs]| & | 49} 9 | EQ] SF sseees* SBSUBY 
VELA es pret Pe | ct (ie 1 Ge le Pee (Se 21 Pee Pave pe Pee ee eel eS eeeerrn 
ov] © | gr Ss Sele wosleter. We oa] Oe € | 4°S €lge| € [of] c | ee] c | ee] € | ac] zc joes cs ues 
Sef ree. zest xr er es ex fae ee) 24.8 2S Ce eee ee ei eee ey £7 eee 
SORE] OR] ORT) PR) OR] S| BR OR RR PS] OS OR] OR) OR] SR] Ok] PS Pe] OR Sees | oe 
SE(EE/FS/SE/FSSETFSlSEl FS PSR) FS] SS/FS SS FS /SS/FS/SE/FslERl PS Es 
RSS] SSF] TIFT] SSS] PSs] PSF] SSE] TSF] SXF] SSF] SSS] sarvas 
® ® ® ® x is) ® ® ® s sy 
SAD3 X 
ua, 40f Iz61 Oz6I 6161 gI61 LI6I QI6I S161 VI6I £161 Z161 
asDAIYy 


‘6161 ul porojsos ‘L161 

UI poystjoqe sem yuourystund yeyrdeo ‘tmosstp UL ‘“UdATS oFe So}eI OY} YOIYA JOJ srvoA 94} JOAOO SIOUTT[]T pue 

SESULY JO SOBeIOAL OUT, “*porsod sOYM JY} JOAO SUTPUYS SAT}LIOI OY} PUP SOSeIOAR OY} OATS 9[qe} OY} JO SUUUNOO 
OM} 4SET OUT, ‘seoA 4eY} UI 93e}S OY} JO UOT}ISOd OAT}EIOI OY} SoyvoIpUT IvaA YOR UI UUINIOO 4SIY OY, 

‘adAy poovy Aavoy ur poyutid ore poystjoqe useq sey 

guowysiund [eyrdeo yoIyA ut sozeys oy, ‘“IeOA YOO UI S9}e}S OY} JO UOTzISOd OAI}EIOI OY} YPM JOY}OSO} ‘OAISNOUT 
‘IZ61 0} TIGI sek OY} JOJ UOISIAIG] [eIJUID YON oY} Url soze4s JYSIo oY} JO SopeI OplolMO}F] OY} SUIMOYS 


ITAX WIadVL 


103 


TABLES AND CHARTS 


OTIS Oe kk eel ag at ey Pe Te al Alo 34 Poet Of SQTi SOLS La Ss. Pea LO ere’ Oily ec Leip ee ota Sa eeeone 
Sortie se | Ole Sei be9: |e Vv 0 SLrG Sl eery 8 oreo Lee eries - | eer ort. Pr ely i 2 ere) 
S9Of1 Vie | S211 |e Oa ec 0-10) 1 O01 26-1 S22 v | 6°38 € j2°9g €=1'9'OT| FES O01) S| Ore ase ey O'O SP os 2" OD STOOL) 
gh ip OD AR Se ae ES Bh hag ee mt il a ad ee 2 ‘ve ers COS0IC) 
OT ee 2'S Por a oe Sy Pe rorg re oro) OO: fee | hehe os Sk cl 26 fat Ee Sl eee OP ole en eee 
Piet Levesar © tka lo c 1S htt ee |e et ce. te ee ed oe 1 |6g] z jovor] s |So] rt [al] xr {°° *'wOPUITySeM 
SSIAAIERSINS ES EGE BS ES BS ESBS ESE 56 BS ES BS BS bSRS nS 
SS(SSTFS/LS TSS SS SS SS SS /SS/FS/SS/ FS] SS] FS) SS] Fs | SS) Fs) Ze/F3) ss 

5. ss = ss S. Ss 5 se 3 ss S: ss S. ss 3 ss 5. 3 5. ss 5. s3 SHLVLS 

® As) As.) a SS a As) As) is) a a 

$ava x aT See ee ee ee ae ae ee es Pee FS eS ars 

uay, Aof IZ6I OZ6I 6161 gIOI LIOI QIOI S161 VIOI £161 ZIOI 

IdDAIBY 


‘potiod o[OyM oY} IOAO SUIPULYS DATL 
-~E[dI OY} PUL SOBLIOAL OY]} DAIS SUUINJOO OM} YSPT OUT, ‘IeaA Ye} UT 0}e}S OY} JO UOT}ISOd OAI}eIOI OY} SoPeOrpPUL 
seo yovo Ul UUIN[OO ySsIY OY, ‘UOs0IO pu UOLZUTYSe MM UT poystjoqe sem yUowYstund yeyrdeo yoryM ut sIvah oYyy 
oyeoIpur odd} pooey Aavoy url pojurid somsy oyy, ‘reek YoRa ur Soze4s OY} JO UOT}ISOd OAI}LIAI OY} YIM 104,030} 
‘QAISNOUT ‘IZOI OF ZI6I SIVdA JY} JO] UOISIAIC] U19}SOAA OY} Ul So}eYS XIS OY} JO So}eI OpIOrMIOFT OY} SuIMOoYS 


IWIAX WIaVoL 


104 APPENDIX A 


TABLE XIX 


Miscellaneous statistics of Homicides, Indictments, Convic- 
tions, Executions, etc., secured from Attorneys General and other 
state officials. 


ARIZONA I9IO-1922 505 homicides 
IOI convictions 
23 sentences to death 
16 executions 


ARKANSAS I92I-1922 424 homicides 
38 sentences to life imprisonment 
13 sentences to death 


FLORIDA IQOI-1922 195 sentenced to death 
153 executed 
4 died 
27 commuted to life imprisonment 
II reversals by court 


IDAHO I9I9-1922 47 convictions, murder, first degree 
o death sentences 


ILLINOIS 1921-1922 416 murder cases 
7 death sentences 
III prison sentences 


NEBRASKA 1921-1922 57 prosecutions for murder 
30 convictions 
1 death sentence 


NEw Hamp. 1912-1922 41 indictments, murder, first degree 
12 life sentences 
2 executions 


NEW JERSEY 1912-1922 137 convictions, murder, first degree 
44 executions 


UTAH I9I2-1922 23 convictions, murder, first degree 
10 executions 

WISCONSIN 1921 56 cases of homicide in courts of 
record 


35 cases of murder 
6 convicted of murder, first degree, 
sentenced to life imprisonment 
4 insane 
6 convicted of murder, second 
degree sentenced to 14 to 25 years 


TABLES AND CHARTS 105 


TABLE XX 


Comparison of Homicide Rates of the Registration Area of the 
United States with the rates of England and Wales, Scotland and 
Ireland. The rates are based on 100,000 units of population. 
The rates in the United States are taken from the Census Bureau 
homicide statistics. The foreign rates were furnished through 
the courtesy of Frederick L. Hoffman, Chief Statistician of The 
Prudential Insurance Company of America and the sources as 
stated by Dr. Hoffman’s office are given. 





United England 


Year Side Pa aioe Scotland Ireland 
IQII 6.6 0.77 0.23 1.0 
I9I2 6.6 0.87 0.23 0.9 
1913 oR 0.87 0.19 1.0 
1914 7.4 0.78 0.29 0.9 
1915 7.0 0.77 0.42 0.8 
1916 Tat 0.74 0.41 0.7 
I9I7 a7 0.76 0.56 0.8 
1918 6.8 0.63 0.47 0.7 
1919 7.5 0.81 0.65 1.5 
1920 7.1 0.77 0.62 9.5* 
1921 8.5 0.65 0.37 ae 
SOURCES 


Statistics for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland are 
from Statistical Abstract of the Umted Kingdom. 

* NoTeE: The increase in 1920 in Ireland was probably due to 
riots and internal disturbances, Figures for homicides in Ireland 
are from Reports of the Registrar General for Ireland, 1911-1920. 


106 


APPENDIX A 


TABLE XXI 


Comparison of Homicide Rates of the Registration Area of 
the United States compared with the rates of Australia, New 
Zealand and South Africa and the Provinces of Ontario and 
Quebec in Canada. The rates are based on 100,000 units of 
population. The rates in the United States are taken from the 
Census Bureau homicide statistics. The foreign rates were 
furnished through the courtesy of Frederick L. Hoffman, and 
the sources as stated by Dr. Hoffman’s office are given. 


United 
Year States 
IQII 6.6 
I9I2 6.6 
1913 7.2 
1914 7-4 
I9I5 7.0 
1916 7.1 
1917 7-7 
1918 6.8 
I9I9 7:5 
1920 71 
1921 8.5 
AUSTRALIA: 


NEW ZEALAND: 
So. AFRICA: 
ONTARIO: 


QUEBEC: 


Aus- New South Oniariail Ouse 
tralia | Zealand| Africa | ~"9"" | ‘Meee 


1.60 0.39 ag 0.71 0.40 
2.18 0.95 1.53 0.50 0.39 
1.94 0.75 2.56 0.45 0.71 
1.81 1.19 2.44 0.65 0.50 
1.84 1.36 2.25 0.33 0.36 
1.85 1.09 1.35 0.50 0.31 
1.49 0.91 1.26 0.72 0.69 
1.81 0.36 1.07 0.75 0.68 





2.16 0.44 0.63 0.62 

2.13 1.34 5 “ga! 3 0.48 

rive 1.23 ree 0.10 0.76 
SOURCES 


Population and Vital Statistics from Common- 
wealth Demography, Bulletin No. 38. 

Figures from Population and Vital Statistics of 
the Dominion of New Zealand. 

Homicide figures (for white population only) 
from Statistics of Union of South Africa. 

Figures from Vital Statistics of Ontario, 
Canada. 

Homicide figures from Health reports of the 
Province of Quebec. 


TABLES AND CHARTS 107 


TABLE XXII 


Comparison of Homicide Rates of the Registration Area of the 
United States with the rates of Spain, Holland, Sweden, Norway 
and Hungary. The rates are based on 100,000 units of popula- 
tion. The rates in the United States are taken from the Census 
Bureau homicide statistics. The foreign rates were furnished 
through the courtesy of Frederick L. Hoffman and the sources 
as stated by Dr. Hoffman’s office are given. 


United 


States | S20” | Holland | Sweden | Norway |Hungary 


6.6 
6.6 
7.2 
7.4 
7.0 
7.1 
7:7 
6.8 
7.5 





SOURCES 


SPAIN: Statistics from Annuario Estadistico de Espana. 
IQII-I9QI7. 

HOLLAND: Statistics from Statistiek van de sterfte van Neder- 
land and from Jaarcifers voor het Koninkrijk der 
Nederlanden Rijk in Europa. 

SWEDEN: Statistics from Ddédsorsaker av Kungl. Statistika 
Centralbrron. 

Norway: Statistics from Statistik Aarbok. 

HunGary: Source of information, Annuaire Statistique Hongrots. 


108 APPENDIX A 


TABLE XXIII 


Comparison of Homicide Rates of all Registration Cities in 
the United States with the rates of foreign cities. The rates are 
based on 100,000 units of population. The rates in the United 
States are taken from the Census Bureau homicide statistics. 
The foreign rates were furnished through the courtesy of Fred- 
erick L. Hoffman and the sources as stated by Dr. Hoffman’s . 
office are given. 


All 

Regis- 
Year | tration Greater 

Cities |Berlin |Hamburg|Letpzig | Parts | Munich| Cologne 

United 

States 
I911|] 8.3 1.31 0.87 1.34517 3:38 2.98 |} 1.53 * 
1912} 8.4 | 1.96 2.54 2.47. 13.67 1) 4.07 | aban 
1913} 9.0 | 1.45 2.19 0.07.74 a2 4.66 | 2.38 * 
1914] 9.2 1.92 3.54 1.76 \4- 2.9% 1.31 | 2.28 * 
191I5| 8.7 aii, 1.29 0.84 | 0.28 9.40.) 2. 9er 
1916} 8.9 | 2.28 74 2.68 | 0.45 2.06; 1 2am 
1917 | 10.0 | 2.69 | 0.67 0.73 | 0.65 | 0.94 | 0.72 * 
1918] 8.8 3.31 2.75 1.19 0.41 0.93 
1919} 9.5 | 5.04 aye 3.14.1 1.99 | 15.00°] 2.85 
1920| 8.8 1.63 2.61 | 3.49 * 
1921] 9.9 a 3.89 | 2.09 * 

SOURCES 


BERLIN: Statistiches Jahrbuch der Stadt Berlin and Be- 
volkerungsvorgange Berlins. 

HAMBURG: Bericht tiber die Medizinische Statistik des Ham- 
burgischen Staates. 

PARIS: Annuaire Statistique de la Ville de Paris. 

MunicH:  Statistisches Monatsbericht der Stadt Miinchen. 

COLOGNE: Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Koln. 


* Note: Figures for Munich for 1919 and for Cologne for the 
entire period include deaths from capital punishment. 


TABLES AND CHARTS 109 


TABLE XXIV 


ITALY 


HOMICIDE RATES 


Average No. per 
Period 100,000 Inhabi- 
tants Per Year 





Note: Statistics were secured from the Italian Ministry of 
Justice through the American Consul General at Rome. 


APPENDIX A 


IIo 





Te SSW 


ee cvesccvegrvava 
seeeceesoarvn “1g 
“*T ‘HY TIAZNaddy 
**** NESOVHAAVHOS 
sees esse ONNORIa 
tee ee cee ereeenng 
sre eee* NFGTIVMAO 
reese ees 7AMHOG 
CEES + 70 

seeeees NEON 


“2QDYuUT 
000‘00r 
SNOLNYO 


OZ6I-18gI OZ6I-I1I61 OI6I—1061 OO6I—I6g8I O6ZI-IggI 


quouystund [eyideo SUIAeY SUOJULO OY} UIY}IA (2) 


*s1voA £410} JO ported o[OYM 94} I9A00 041 94} PU SOplorlwMoY jo Joquinu oy} ‘9]qe} 94} JO UUIN[OO B[qnop [eUy oy} 
OBI [PIUUBIEp 94} JO Y}U9}-aUO oq P[NOM 94eI [eNUUL 94} ‘sezeI SOYeIg PoqIUA) 94} YyIM UOstIeduIOS Jo ssodind oy} Joy “sive 


U9} JOJ ae sjULTIGeyUI JO OOO‘OOL Jod 94e1 94} PUL SeplorMIOY JO JoquInU oY} “jse] ot} ydaoxe potsed yous Ur yey} 9JON 
‘go1ysnf jo juourjredagq 


[eJoPpeg SSIMG OY} WIOIJ OUIOg UI oZ¥[NSUOD ULOLIOUY OY} YBNOIY} poinoess o19M PULIIOZ}IMG UI Sepformoy Jo Vjep 94, 


GNVTYGZLIMS ‘SACIDINOH WOU SHLVAG 
AXX ATAVL 


IIl 


TABLES AND CHARTS 











$°z Ppolsed ivaA us} Yove IOj Bulog 

















6°6 g6ze g'I 989 ad 988 L’z 363 
eee ose coe 88 eee QzI ove Q£1 

0°6 bS7z BOX, esp ANS zss Saas £gs 
L‘or Zvi a ov Shu vz 6rl Sz 
v3 gor 9°0 g L°t £z o'% Qz 
L°6 blz 6’! 09 I°% 89 £°z 99 
z°6 QcI os ve 0°% If vz ve 
eZ £g Gr 0% 6'I 9c cee DE 
g°L IQI cor of 6'I Sv S:Z zs 
I°L vL g°I Zo vr LI Lx gI 
g's Ze Pl 8 S°I 6 ea i L 
Lor cL Q'I I 6% cz ee Zz 
vg v6 6'I Le £71 SI Bib 61 
err €11 Qg°I vz vz Sz ze ze 
9°s QI 6°0 £ 9°0 z oo L 
Sort SI I°% £ vr Zz <5 L 
z°6 Ivs Z°I £g O°? Of£I £°~ LEI 
£°6 ooVv vr gl ZS Lor 9°z €11 
$qUDI S]UD}4 SqUD} S1UD} 

-1qoyuy | $?P22 || -ranyuz | $?P!2 || -rqoyuz | S?P?2 | -rqanyuz | $9P9 

ooo‘oor | “40 || oootoor | “OH || oootoor | “9H || oootoor | “OH 
49d 19707 49d 1270. 49d 1070. 49d 1010L 

OZ6I-I8gI Oz6I-I161 OI6I-1061 OO6I—16g81 














3°z 928 
vies 999 
o's €£s 
ov 6 
ABS 08 
bt 6z 
6'l Oz 
GET ve 
Q'I LI 
S“I 8 
AS SI 
I'v of 
a 6z 
Sr 9 
vz € 
gf I6I 
ove Zor 
SqUDI 
-1QDYUT sap1a 
ooo‘oor | “MoH 
49d 10707 
O68I-IggI 


quowmystund jeyideo Surssassod you suojueo oY} UIYZIM (q) 


(panuyuod) AXX Tavi 


eeee Oe OCCT YE 
*-AHZLIMG AOA TVLOL 





‘NMONANQ @TIOINOG 


—— 


etn eek WO. | 








sens eo o0ce GemNET) 
cece ce es *TALYHOANAN 
C5 aah avs Come ye 
to eeceeseesoe MISCHT 
seeeeeeee TIAQODUNHL 
soe sees sees TTAQDTY 
peas o¥ 0s * +0 ENOSTEL) 
“IXY ‘HY TIAZNaddy 
"ee °* ANOVdINVO-ATY 
Tere ce eee TIITA-TIVG 
tee eeceeses TENTION 
se teens sess s sorawtsy 
te ee e+ cee NTGIVMGIN 
eee ceeecsooc nang 
re eecerereore HTN 


SNOLNVD 


112 APPENDIX A 


TABLE XXVI 
AVERAGE HoMICIDE RATES 


Average Ra, 
Country Period for Period 


UNITED STATES 
Total in Registration Area I9II-I921 


ENGLAND AND WALES I91I-I921 
IQII-I921 
I9II-I919 


I9II-1921 

I9II-I921 

I9II-1920 

NEW ZEALAND IQII—1922 

SouTH AFRICA 1912-1918 

SPAIN IQII-1917 

Tray (Abolition) 1910-1920 

HoLianpD (Abolition) I91I-1918 

SWEDEN 1909-1918 

Norway (Abolition) I9IO-I919 
SWITZERLAND (10 cantons with capi- 

tal punishment, 15 without) I9II-1920 





TABLE XXVII 


AVERAGE HoMICIDE RATES FOR CITIES 












Average Rate 
City Period for Period 
FOREIGN CITIES 
Greater Hamburg 1912-1918 2.10 
Leipzig I9II-—1920 1.68 
Berlin 1912-1919 2.48 


Paris I9IO-I9I9 1.93 


TABLES AND CHARTS 113 


TABLE XXVII—Continued 
AVERAGE HoMICIDE RATES 


Average Rate 
City Period for Period 


CITIES IN UNITED STATES 
New York 1912-1921 
Philadelphia 
Boston 
Milwaukee 
Rochester 
Reading, Pa. 





Note: Of the American cities selected for comparison, Reading 
is the lowest, Rochester the second lowest and Milwaukee the 
third lowest of the twenty-eight largest cities in the United States. 


TABLE XXVIII 


Return of Number of Cases of Supposed Murder in England 
and Wales in 1912, 1913, 1920 and Ig2r (excluding cases of 
Infanticide of Children under one year by Mother, and Deaths 
from Illegal Operations). 


Taken from a Report presented to Parliament 
December, 1922. 


Apart from cases of infanticide of children under one year of 
age by mother and cases of death from illegal operations, 390 
cases of supposed murder came to the knowledge of the Police in 
the years I9I2, I913, 1920 and 1921. 

In 83 of these cases the murderer committed suicide; in 288 
cases arrests were made involving 313 persons; in the remaining 
19 cases no arrest was made. 

Of the 313 persons arrested and charged with murder, 64 were 
discharged or acquitted in respect of 51 cases, other persons 
being convicted in respect of three of these cases; 94 were con- 
victed of murder and sentenced to death; 70 were ordered to be 


114 APPENDIX A 


detained during His Majesty’s Pleasure (found guilty but insane, 
insane on arraignment or below 16 years of age); 74 were con- 
victed of lesser offenses (manslaughter, wounding, &c.); 6 were 
found insane before trial; and the remaining 5 were disposed of as 
follows: 1 died awaiting trial, 1 extradited to Norway, 1 arrested 
and dealt with in italy, 1 shot while being arrested, 1 handed 
over to the American authorities. 


——— 


1912|1913/1920|1921| Total . 





NUMBER OF CASES OF SUPPOSED 





MURDER 
Cases in which supposed murderer 
Was ATER fade aie 78 | 74 | 80 | 56 288 
Cases in which murderer commit- 
tedvenicide. 329 Sy SVP ew 16 | 25 | 20 | 22 83 
Cases in which no arrest wasmade| 4] 1| 7} 7 19 
MLR; Jats tale Sint wh Siar etek 98 |100 |/107 | 85 | 390 


NUMBER OF PERSONS ARRESTED AND 
RESULTS OF PROCEEDINGS 


Convicted of Murder 





Sentenced to death........... 26 | 27 | 28 | 13 94 
Persons under 16 detained dur- 
ing His Majesty’s pleasure...| .. | .. I 2 3 
Found guilty but insane.......} 12 | 13 | 12] 8 45 
Total convicted of murder...} 38 | 40 | 41 | 23 142 
Convicted of some other offense..| 27 | 19 | 13 | 15 74 
Agch Gr eG... y.i3 cw 45's eas I2 | 12 | 26] 14 64 
Found insane on arraignment....| 4] 5 ey te 22 
Found insane on trial........... Oe ee en I 6 
IEDR SORUION EC Ws h b's nino ne aha Oe o's 0} Ss rere 5 





TABLES AND CHARTS 115 


TABLE XXIX 
STATISTICS OF HOMICIDES, ENGLAND AND WALES, I913 TO 1922 


Statistics received from Home Office, through the American 
Embassy at London, England. 


IQIZ/IOT4Z/IOI5| IOIG|19I7/1918/1919|1920|/ 1921/1922 


CRIMES KNOWN TO POLICE 
Murder 
Manslaughter 


Total 


Rate per 100,000 


MURDER 

Persons for trial (B) 

Number actually tried 

Number convicted of mur- 
der (C) 

Persons under 16 ordered to 
be detained during His 
Majesty’s Pleasure 

Sentenced to Death 

Sentenced to Imprisonment 
for Life 

Executed 





Note: Figures on line (A) relate to all murders known to the Police, 
whereas those on line (B) relate to the number of persons brought to 
trial in respect of those murders or some of them. Figures on line 
(C) give only the number of persons convicted of murder. Many of 
those mentioned in line (B) would be found guilty of the lesser offense 
of manslaughter and a certain number would be acquitted. 


116 APPENDIX A 


TABLE XXX 


Showing the number of persons for trial and the number of 
convictions in the Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions in 
England and Wales for the year 1921. 


TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS FOR TRIAL.......... 8934 
ING: DROSEOWLIOT Sic). Weis Wuleie hardic matele sk ee 13 
Insane on arraionment 0a e Oe bab due Os oe ee 30 
Coit ted ie RU he, Cee Rea cea 1712 
Special verdict, guilty but insane.............. 27 
KCORIV ICH: Lista toc hle'd o/s hints beete auton Bald le See ee 7152 

ieee 

LOTAL CONVICTIONS Vi..05 Uy box mie & vein hone. a die aC 7152 
peritented: to death Fist bike yeh ele wae uale eee 13 

hy " menal servitide.| is saves veut aes re 582 
re UR DFISONITIOME ce, |. Siewert Conte 4648 
x “* ‘Borstal detention [3 2.0; wa oe eee 
" ‘* recognizances with probation officer 516 
w ‘“* recognizances {without probation 
OTCBE ASIN wd oles wleace ale hey Aaa 902 
Otherwise dispased Of i.) bss enaduecey pe eee 164 
ene rer 


Note: The Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions in England 
and Wales are the chief courts of Criminal Jurisdiction. The 
above figures are taken from Judicial Statistics, England and 
Wales 1921; Part I, Criminal Statistics. 


TABLES AND CHARTS 117 


TABLE XXXI 


Table showing the number of Homicides, Homicide Rate, 
Indictments, Trials, Sentences and Executions, in France, for 
the years 1913, 1919, 1920 and 1921, furnished by the French 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 


1913*| 1919 | 1920 | I92If 


1.—Number of homicides......... I501 | 1541 | 1940 | 1737 
2.—Homicide rate per 100,000 of 

DOTMUACION Se Sa! dialer lw sey aes 4 4 5 4 
3.—Number of indictments for 

BICUEE Viale site be wets Rares ae He 1304 | 1136 | 1603 | 1650 
4.—Of those indicted, the number 

Hroupht tottialyy oiaveere ss 855 | 620 | 1154 | 1048 
5.—Of those tried, the number con- 

WIE Sa ea si teme sa sale Bie 558 | 391 | 410] 713 
6.—Of those convicted, the number 

sentenced to death........... 20 16 54 64 
7.—Of those convicted, the number 

sentenced to life imprisonment. 70 36 | 104 | IOZ 
8.—Of those sentenced to death, the 

number subsequently executed. 10 5 13 20 


Comments on statistics made by Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

*Information collected during 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 

(war years) has not been published and is so summary as to be 
of little value. 

{Scrutiny of statistics for 1922 not yet terminated. 

The number of homicides set down in the first line represents 
the totality of crimes by assassination, murder, poisoning, 
infanticide, parricide, assault and battery resulting in death, 
and those cases constituting a crime or misdemeanor which were 
not followed up by the Public Prosecutor, or in which the bill of 
indictment was thrown out by the Examining Magistrate or the 
Court of Indictment. 

Cases in which the bill of indictment was thrown out were 
likewise taken into account in the valuation of the figures in line 
3, “‘number of indictments,” this expression having been inter- 
preted in the sense of “‘inculpations.”’ 


118 APPENDIX A 


SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


EXPLANATORY OF CHART I 


Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
the years 1910 to 1921 inclusive in two states in the 
North Atlantic Division which have abolished capital 
punishment (Maine and Rhode Island) contrasted 
with the combined average rate in two states in this 
Division similar in size, character of population and 
industrial conditions, which retain capital punish- 
ment. (New Hampshire and Connecticut). 

The solid black line represents the combined aver- 
age rate in those states which retain capital punish- 
ment, the broken black line represents the combined 
average rate in those states in which it has been 
abolished. 

The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statis- 
tics of the United States Census Bureau. 


119 


TABLES AND CHARTS 


SEE perp ioearkia OE SHEET 
NUMBER ONE 


oie 
2) 
Q 
wl 
= 
io 
zr 
9° 
a 
< 
s 
- 


STATES RETAIN C.P 


a 
z 
< 
a 
= 
- 
nt 


i 
bald 
SS Bee OE < 





120 APPENDIX A 


SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


EXPLANATORY OF CHART II 


Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
the years 1914 to I921 inclusive in the North Central 
Division in two states which have abolished capital 
punishment (Michigan and Minnesota) contrasted 
with the combined average rate in two states in this 
Division similar in size, character of population and 
industrial conditions which retain capital punish- 
ment. (Ohio and Indiana). 

The solid black line represents the combined aver- 
age rate in those states which retain capital punish- 
ment, the broken black line represents the combined 
average rate in those states where it has been abol- 
ished. 

The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statis- 
tics of the United States Census Bureau. 


I2I 


TABLES AND CHARTS 











APACE PL 
SLL TPL eT 
UL 
SEH HECHT 


NUMBER TWO “2” 





SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 








CHART If 





» ABOLISHED C.P 





STATES RETAIN C.P 





Tete 


122 APPENDIX A 


SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


EXPLANATORY OF CHART III 


Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
the years I9II to 1921 inclusive in four states in the 
Western Division which retained capital punishment 
(Montana, Colorado, Utah and California) contrasted 
with the Homicide Rates in Minnesota, Washington 
and Oregon. In Minnesota capital punishment was 
abolished for the entire period. In Washington it 
was abolished in I913 and restored in 1919. In 
Oregon it was abolished in 1914 and restored in 1920. 

The solid line represents the combined average 
rate in the four states which retained capital punish- 
ment and in Washington and Oregon for the period 
before and after abolition. The broken line represents 
the rates in these two states during the abolition 
period. The dotted line represents the rate in Minne- 
sota for the entire period. The Homicide Rate figures 
are taken from statistics of the United States Census 
Bureau. 


123 


TABLES AND CHARTS 









—| | S + <t 
| =e 

» |S | See 
Ngai esisiele ps | | CBR Te 

) bo cae ‘ : 

peed 5 

! ae S 

N\ + * . 

~ 29 ek 
“wu IW 2M 
Ell sre Ta t 5 

_, é; 

: Ge | 
n un 
se 2 | 

. : 
0 aL q |: | 

a? | a 

= zee rad ec Ee 
atti A 





oO 
N 
oO 





SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
NUMBER THREE "3 














CHART Il 
























0o}oQ 
= e zw) \n 
oO K|2<| 2 
_ YO1S 
t]o 
[3 
t 






° 
Xe) 





0 ee - 

fa} t+ 4 wo 
iow [o> < Say st 
FYo ame \ 
| Bata i 
1 <0 5 
low 

v4 
* 6 
© 89s y ‘ 
jeeel— = 3 - 
fo 5 4i— Ny Ba 
LGOO|D - 
}20qQ _ < 
Ooo 
yOO 

! 

! 

i 

ie 


a: 
16) 
o 
: oO Pre) 


a“ 
om 


ind 
N 
PH THOM OHSU? 





2 = — 
Te menienninntanneiill 





124 APPENDIX A 


SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


EXPLANATORY OF CHART IV 


Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
the years 1914 to I921 inclusive in six states where 
capital punishment was abolished (Maine, Rhode 
Island, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Kansas) 
contrasted with the Homicide Rate for the entire 
Registration Area of the United States. 

The solid line represents the Homicide Rate in the 
Registration Area, the broken black line represents 
the combined average rate in the six abolition states. 

The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statis- 
tics of the United States Census Bureau. 


125 


TABLES AND CHARTS 


SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


RATE IN ENTIRE REGISTRATION CH: 


Ps 


NUMBER FOUR 


H 
{ 
1 
) a 


» SiX ABOLITION 





126 APPENDIX A 


SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


EXPLANATORY OF CHART V 


Showing a comparison of the Homicide Rate 
between Cities and Rural Districts in the Registra- 
tion Area of the United States for the period 1911 to 
1921 inclusive. The solid line represents the rate in 
Cities, the broken line the rate in the Rural District. 

The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statistics 
of the United States Census Bureau. 


127 


TABLES AND CHARTS 


- 
yu 
x 
wie 
>t 
a 
E 
uw 
= 
ud 
- 
1a 
a 
2 
” 
13 
,” 


NUMBER FIVE “5” 


_ RURAL OIS. 


ATTTLT 
ACCUEIL CCE 
BULLETS Pt 
AULT a | 


fl eee eee Saar e St eT eee 





128 APPENDIX A 


SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


EXPLANATORY OF CHARTS VI AND VII 


Showing graphically: 


Chart VI, for all states for which complete statistics 
are available, the percentage of all those sentenced to 
death during the years I912 to 1919 inclusive, who 
were subsequently executed. 


Total number sentenced to death 722 
Number who failed to be executed 210 
Total number executed 512 


Chart VII, for all states for which complete statistics 
are available, the percentage of those sentenced to life 
imprisonment during the eight years 1912 to I9I9 
inclusive, who were commuted, or released prior to 
January Ist, 1923, and the percentage who on that 
date were still in prison or had died or become insane. 


Total number sentenced to life imprison- 
ment 2936 
Number commuted, released, etc., prior 
to January Ist, 1923 651 


TABLES AND CHARTS 


\ r 


HAR 
SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


fi COMMUTED, 
RELEASED, ETC. 


WN 
INSANE\OR 
WWWQH 
RE IN PRISON 
Aare 


JAN MN 
RAK 
Ie 


a 





129 


130 APPENDIX A 


SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 


EXPLANATORY OF CHART VIII 


Showing graphically the total number of reported 
homicides in twelve states during the years’ 1912 to 
1919, inclusive; the number of prisoners sentenced to 
death and the number executed during the same 
period. 


STATES INCLUDED 


NEw HAMPSHIRE VIRGINIA 
VERMONT KENTUCKY 
MASSACHUSETTS INDIANA 
CONNECTICUT OHIO 

NEw YORK UTAH 


PENNSYLVANIA CALIFORNIA 


TABLES AND CHARTS 131 


SUPPLEMENTARY 








Appendix B 





QUOTATIONS 


133 





EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE WITH STATE EXECU- 
TIVES AND WITH WARDENS OF STATE PRISONS; 
COMMENTS BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL; 
QUOTATIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES. 


Extracts from Letters from Governors 


The sentiment of our people would be overwhelm- 
ingly against restoration of the death penalty if 
the question were brought forward for discussion. 
The policy of the State is fixed and I do not think 
there is even a small minority of our people who 
would favor a change. 

—GOVERNOR BAXTER of Maine. 


The abolition of capital punishment did not tend 
to increase the number of murders. It apparently had 
no effect one way or the other. There is no agitation 
in the state at this time for the restoration of capital 
punishment. I feel that South Dakota did a wise 
thing in abolishing this penalty. 

—GOVERNOR McMasTER, South Dakota. 


I am opposed to capital punishment because I think 
it serves no good purpose. I believe that public execu- 
tions instead of operating to the public good, have 
just the opposite effect. 

—GOVERNOR Hunt, Arizona. 


The Governor is inclined to the belief that capital 
punishment is not justified at all. The Governor is 


135 


136 APPENDIX B 


strongly of the opinion that capital punishment in 
Colorado has not had any effect whatsoever as a 
deterrent of crime. 
—HALE SMITH, Secretary to 
Governor Sweet of Colorado. 


I would repeal the law which provides the death 
penalty, except as it applies to criminals, who, after 
being sentenced, commit another capital offense, and 
I would not permit the Governor or anyone else but — 
the Court to alter the sentence pronounced by the 
Court for such crimes. 

—Ex-GovERNOoR McKELvIE, Nebraska. 
Message to Legislature, January 6, 1921. 


I do not believe that the number of murders has 
either greatly increased nor decreased since the death 
penalty was abolished twelve years ago. 

—GOVERNOR PrREus, Minnesota. 


Governor Groesbeck takes the view that the State 
has no more right to commit murder than has a private 
individual. Neither does it appear from the statis- 
tics gathered from states which still have capital 
punishment that the infliction of the death penalty is 
a real deterrent of the crime of murder, and if this 
be so, surely the whole case in favor of capital punish- 
ment falls to the ground. There is no question in the 
Governor’s mind that the abolition of the death pen- 
alty many years ago by the State of Michigan was 
generally beneficial to the State. 

—Ro.puH Durr, Secretary to 
Governor Groesbeck, Michigan. 


QUOTATIONS iets 


My impression would be that the abolition of capital 
punishment removes one of the deterrents to the 
commission of the crime of murder, but that it is 
justified nevertheless. 

—GoveErRnNor NEstTos, North Dakota. 


When the citizens of a commonwealth are educated 
to the point of believing that a criminal needs scien- 
tific treatment at the hands of a penologist quite as 
much as a consumptive patient requires medical care; 
when a State is provided with penal and correctional 
institutions adequate as to size, equipment and person- 
nel; when convicts, without being ‘‘coddled,’’ are so 
trained that they return to their communities better 
citizens for having been incarcerated; when a State 
has taken such forward steps in penal reform, no 
appreciable opposition to the abolition of capital pun- 
ishment will be manifest. 

—GOVERNOR PINCHOT, Pennsylvania. 


Comments by State Attorneys General’ 


Personally, I do not believe that there is any relation 
between first degree murder and the punishment pre- 
scribed therefor... . 

—QOscar L. Younc, New Hampshire. 


It seems to me very clear that the use of capital 
punishment does not prevent homicides, and I am 
sure there is no substantial sentiment in Wisconsin 
in favor of returning to capital punishment. 

—HERMAN L. EKERN, Wisconsin. 


* Published in Report of the Committee on Law Entorcement 
of the American Bar Association, August, 1923. 


138 APPENDIX B 


I am of the opinion that capital punishment is not 
a deterrent of homicides. ... It seems to me that 
merely prescribing an extreme penalty accomplishes 
nothing; it is a mere bogie which frightens no one. 
If we could substitute for this bogie the certainty of 
some punishment, whatever it might be, this certainty 
would be a deterrent. 

—MI.Ton J. HELmicx, New Mexico. 


My observation leads me to the conclusion that 
capital crimes are not committed by people who have 
sufficient control to feel the deterring effect of punish- 


ment. 
—J.S. UTLEy, Arkansas. 


My observation has been that the average person 
who commits a crime never considers for a moment 
what the penalty will probably be should he be appre- 
hended and convicted, and therefore, severe penalties 
do not have the deterrent effect that some people would 
ascribe to them. The greatest deterrent which might 
occur by law enforcement is the certainty of detec- 


tion and conviction. 
—RtIvers Burorp, Florida. 


I have no well defined opinion as to how much of a 
deterrent the death penalty is. I doubt if it has much 
virtue in that respect. . . . Whatever effect the 
death penalty may have, however, is largely negatived 
by the fact that juries are reluctant to fix it, judges 
are reluctant to pronounce it, courts are eager to seize 
upon technical grounds for the modification of the 
judgment and the pardoning power hastens to com- 


QUOTATIONS 139 


mute. . . . it is not so much the degree of the 
punishment which acts as a deterrent upon the 
criminal, as it is the speed with which the punish- 
ment follows the crime and the certainty that the 
penalty must be paid. 

—A.H. Connor, Idaho. 


While I cannot say that I have positive convictions 
upon the subject I have always doubted the right or 
the propriety of imposing the death penalty since 
government is apparently able to protect society 
without this extreme measure. 

—ULyssEs S. Les, Indiana. 


Extracts from Letters from Wardens 


I am unalterably opposed to capital punishment, 
have always been and probably will always be, as I 
do not believe there is any deterrent in capital punish- 
ment. . .. I realize that society often is exasper- 
ated over some hideous crime that is committed, yet 
the infliction of the death penalty is no deterrent, 
and very few, if any, of the men I have known who 
were executed, ever gave any thought to the penalty 
when the crime was committed. On the other hand 
some of the best men I have ever come in contact 
with behind the prison walls were men who had been 
sent to the Penitentiary under the death penalty and 
whose sentences have been commuted to life imprison- 
ment, so it is better by far to give the offender a 
chance to reclaim himself, repent of his crime and 
possibly save his soul, than it is to inflict the death 


140 APPENDIX B 


penalty upon him. Capital punishment never lessens 
crime nor will it ever doso.... 
—TuHomMAsS J. TYNAN, Warden, 
Colorado State Penitentiary. 


I am not in favor of capital punishment. I am for . 
the reformation of men who have been sent to prison. 
I do not believe it will lessen crime in any way. 

—Harry L. Huripurt, Warden, 
Michigan State Prison. 


I do not believe the death penalty is any deterrent 
to crime. There are no more murders in Rhode 
Island where the death penalty was abolished seventy- 
five years ago than there are in Massachusetts, 
Connecticut or New York, where the death penalty 
is still inflicted. 

—CHARLES E. Linscott, Warden, 
Rhode Island State Prison. 


I am frank to say that I do not believe in capital 
punishment. Ido not believe that we have any more 
crime than they do in the states where they have 
capital punishment. 

—LESTER D. Eaton, Warden, 
Maine State Prison. 


I, personally, am opposed to capital punishment. 
I do not believe it acts as a preventive, and if it does 
not, why should we have it? 
—G. T. JAMESON, Warden, 
South Dakota Penitentiary. 


QUOTATIONS 141 


Miscellaneous Quotations 


I believe the public is gradually awaking to this 
fact; that the death penalty is serving no purpose 
(except dispensing with the necessity of feeding, 
housing and providing work for the prisoner) which 
cannot be accomplished with much better effect in 
the interest of society, by imprisonment, and the 
public’s will to abolish executions will be expressed 
in many states before many years. This growing 
attitude is indicated by many signs. 

—Death by Law, by Harry L. Davis, 
Ex-Governor of Ohio. 


It is a perfectly safe assumption that a very con- 
siderable proportion of homicidal crimes escape 
punishment, while the enforcement of the death 
penalty is a rather rare event, considering the large 
extent of cases in which it is deserved. Personally, 
my investigations, particularly in the case of electro- 
cutions, have led me to change my opinion, and I am 
now reasonably well convinced that capital punish- 
ment, even when properly enforced, is not a sufficient 
deterrent of homicidal crimes to justify its continu- 
ance. It is a relic of barbarism for which modern 
civilized society should long since have been able to 
find a proper substitute. 

—Dr. FREDERICK L. HOFFMAN, 
Consulting Statistitian, 
Prudential Life Insurance Company. 


It is a matter of history and statistics that in pro- 
portion as capital punishment, torture and cruel 
penalties are abolished, crime decreases. . . . No 


142 APPENDIX B 


soul except the soul unafraid could ever be genuinely 

good. It is fear that makes criminals. Fear is not 

the cure for crime. ... Seventy-five per cent of the 

life-term prisoners in the United States are model 

prisoners. .. . Probably not more than eighteen per 

cent of the life men have ever been in serious conflict — 
with the law before. 

—MorbDECAI S. PLUMMER, Ex-Warden, 
New Castle County Workhouse, 
Wilmington, Delaware. 


There have been received in this institution two 
hundred and sixty-three prisoners under life sentence. 
Of these sixty-five have been discharged by pardon. 
Our records show but one case where the prisoner 
pardoned returned to crime. 

—Letter from Warden, Wisconsin State 
Prison, to CHARLES B. GALBREATH. 


I was previously confined in one of the largest 
prisons of Paris, where I came in contact with several 
thousand fellow-prisoners. . . . Amongst other 
things we talked of capital punishment. And I heard 
from all of them that its effect was just the opposite 
from that claimed for it. For these men were outcasts 
from respectable society. They had no further hope 
of its estimation or honor; yet everyone naturally 
desires the good opinion of his fellow men, and if he 
cannot obtain the appreciation of the good, he will 
still value the admiration of the bad. Such is human 
vanity. But if there is anything the criminal class 
admire it is pluck and daring defiance of authority 
and its penalties. Consequently even the Guillotine 


: QUOTATIONS eae, 


is to them an object to be defied in actual life. And 
thus do they defy and disregard it because it renders 
them heroes to their own class. 
—Interview with a French prisoner. 
Quoted by WILLIAM TALLACK, in 
Penological and Preventive Principles. 


Concerning the abolishment of capital punishment, 
Governor Washburn wrote in 1873: 

‘It has been twenty years since the abolishment of 
capital punishment in this State. No State can show a 
greater freedom from homicidal crimes with a popula- 
tion representing almost every nationality. Statistics 
show that crime, instead of increasing with the growth 
of population in the state, has actually decreased.”’ 

Governor McGovern wrote in 1912: 

‘“More than fifty years ago capital punishment was 
abolished in Wisconsin. There is no movement here to 
restore capital punishment, the people being well 
satisfied with the present law.”’ 

We believe that this is the concensus of opinion in 


Wisconsin today. 
—Extract from letter from 


WISCONSIN STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, 

July, 1923. 
Professor Liepmann has made an exhaustive study 
of the effect of the abolishment of the death penalty 
in fifteen countries, including Italy, Portugal, Switzer- 
land, Holland, Norway. In none of these states does 
he find evidence that any increase in crime resulted 


from the change. 
—Penology in the United States. 


by PRoFEssoR L. N. ROBINSON (p. 254). 


144 - APPENDIX B 


There is need for a wide-spread campaign to edu- 
cate the public to favor the abolition of the Death 
Penalty and to substitute in place thereof something 
more constructive. Nothing is gained by destroying 
a man’s life, other than satisfying the feeling for 
revenge. It has been shown quite clearly that the. 
death penalty has not only not reduced crime but has 
frequently increased it. Executions have a most 
degrading effect upon the public for they tend to 
make the public cry for greater vengeance, stronger 
laws, more drastic sentences and more rigorous prisons. 
Crime may only be lessened by making impossible dire 
poverty which makes men desperate, and by estab- 
lishing conditions that are normal and human. 

—B. OGDEN CHISHOLM, 
International Prison Commissioner. 


In the states that have abolished capital punish- 
ment the proportionate number of homicides is low. 
If the United States leads all other nations in the 
ctime of murder, that disgraceful eminence is due to 
the states that throughout their entire history have 
prescribed and executed the penalty of death. In 
this letter to which I have referred, Upton states 
that he has not kept statistics of homicides for sepa- 
rate states, but that they are proportionately most 
numerous in New York and Pennsylvania in the 
North and in Texas, Tennessee, Virginia and Mis- 
sissippi in the South. It is a fact of prime significance 
that the two Northern States named lead also, abso- 
lutely and relatively, in the number of legal execu- 
tions in that section. Murder and the death penalty 
go hand in hand. They flourish together. The legal 


QUOTATIONS 145 


execution with its sensational details, is a sickening, 
disgraceful, degrading exhibition. It demoralizes the 
community from newsmonger down to executioner. 
Public opinion has driven it from the light of day to 
the darkness of midnight and the solitude and gloom 
of the dungeon. 

It is claimed that the death penalty will deter 
others from committing crime; that the example of a 
legal execution imposes a salutary restraint. If this 
be true, why was it abolished for minor offenses? 
Why are all its advocates and apologists agreed that it 
should apply to only one or two of the one hundred and 
sixty so-called capital crimes enumerated in the days of 
Sir William Blackstone? . Why was the restraining 
death penalty abandoned for all these minor offenses? 

The death penalty does not reform, does not deter, 
does not protect, does not accomplish a single legiti- 
mate end of punishment. It has been tried; it has 
failed; and it is doomed. It may not wholly pass 
away in your day or mine. But an enlightened public 
conscience will veto this decree and write for the state, 
as the state has written for its citizen’s the injunction 
at once rational, Scriptural, salutary and humani- 
tarian, ‘‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.” 

—Address by CHARLES B. GALBREATH. 


If we must kill criminals, the use of electricity is 
the best way. Society is still barbaric, and so poorly 
organized that it cannot find any better way to protect 
itself than by the stupid method of killing its criminals. 

—Quotation from a letter 
from THomAs A. EDISON to 
Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. 


146 APPENDIX B 


The American Federation of Labor has declared 
its opposition to capital punishment. In 1895 it 
adopted a resolution declaring capital punishment a 
barbarous and ‘‘revolting practice’’ and one that 
should be abolished. That was my opinion at that 
time and for many years before. 

—Quotation from a letter 
from SAMUEL GOMPERS to 
Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. 





Date Due 


Tk, a 


mm 2 gy 2 ht 


sce) ATTA lis ee 





















































ne 
] a4 sy 
a ah 


see whe 


Mi 


She anne! 


nye 
| ie ti \ BAK 


pea 


5 


Wola ee 
Na able a 
Ri dh 


Cee pl 





HV8694 .L41 


: an analysis of 


= 
P=) 
© 
gv 
i 
va 
oO 
~ 
; 9 
58] 
= 
Oo 
wc 
“” 
Cc 
i) 
= 


| 


| 
| 


Seminary—Speer Library 


n Theological 


| 


Princeto 


il 


| 


| 


| 


Ill 


| 


1 1012 00140 2181 





